Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:05, 4 February 2010

Armenia–Portugal relations

• Articles for deletion/Armenia–Portugal relations
• Articles for deletion/Armenia–Portugal relations (2nd nomination)

Armenia–Portugal relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

arguments for keep last time didn't back up with comprehensive third party coverage. neither country has a resident ambassador. article largely hinges on 3 sources and Calouste Gulbenkian who has its own article. it appears most of their relations are on the football field . LibStar (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - the countries plainly have significant relations and the better way forward is to continue the sourcing and development of the page. TerriersFan (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

really? what do you define as significant? I can't find evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Im content with the references for now, although I might look for a few more to add in later. Not every relationship has to be amazing, and gigantic indeed this relationship is subtle but it is still an important part of worldwide foreign policy (Of course that is just my opinion). Plus it is a nice almanac article which is part of WP:5P. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

CommentThere is an issues with source here. I thinik a few more mainstream third parties would be usefull.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - as absurd as last time. As pointed out already, Calouste Gulbenkian and two institutions related to him already have articles. Moreover, during Gulbenkian's stay in Lisbon (1942-55), there was no Armenian state (that would only come in 1991), so ipso facto he could have had nothing to do with "Armenia-Portugal relations". (And even if there had been an Armenia back then, since when do wealthy expatriates count as "relations"? Would we mention Mohamed Al-Fayed at Egypt–United Kingdom relations, or do we mention Abdul Razzak Yaqoob at Pakistan – United Arab Emirates relations?) And no, neither the fact that a few Portuguese politicians visited Armenia for a couple of days in 2001, eliciting supportive remarks from Armenian leaders, nor the fact that the Armenian ambassador once held a conversation with a Portuguese legislator, in any way validate this topic. These are items of news, and rather trivial ones at that, which we would never normally pick up outside this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Both Armenia and Portugal have articles too, does that mean they can't be mentioned in other articles? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You could look at it from the opposite angle, too. For example, our article on Bill Clinton mentions that he plays the saxophone, and there's no shortage of news articles that also mention this. Should we start Bill Clinton's saxophone skills? Yilloslime _C 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A reduction to absurdity is fun to write and fun to read, but doesn't add anything useful to the debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So why do you keep making such arguments? I mean really, what is your comment about not mentioning Armenia and Portugal in other articles if it's not reductio ad absurdum? My point with the above comment is that some topics are best covered in stand alone articles, and others--even when notable enough for their own articles--are best covered in parent articles. The locations of diplomatic missions of Armenia and Portugal are best covered in Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Portugal, respectively, and Calouste Gulbenkian is best discussed in Calouste Gulbenkian. There's no valued added by synthesizing these disparate factoids into article supposedly about the relations between Armenia and Portugal. Yilloslime _C 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete The countries plainly do not have significant relations. As there are no reliable third party sources that discuss this topic any sort of depth or detail, we should not have an article about it. Yilloslime _C 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. If I were to rank all the permutations of relations this wouldn't rank on top, but the references seem fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The bilateral relationship doesn't appear to extend beyond the occasional exchange of the usual compliments given to visiting delegations and the references don't cover the bilateral relationship in any depth. Moreover, the 'history' section is about a single individual's business and charity interests, not the relationship between the countries. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. Two independent countries that are represented diplomatically. Not relevant that there are no embassies.sulmues Talk--Sulmues 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Two independent countries that are represented diplomatically" is not a criterion for these articles. WP:N is. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The article's reliable and verifiable sources support the claim of notability. Lack of resident ambassadors is not a valid criteria for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lack of resident ambassadors is not a criterion but certainly it would give an indication how each country views the other. If there is a lot of trade, investment, tourism and migration, these are usually triggers for opening an embassy. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Sourced article on notable subject. Nominator's reasons are not convincing. Per WP:ATD, its always better to improve an article, than nominate it for deletion because someone else has not done so. Schmidt, 09:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep due to improvements since first nomination, i.e. editors are actively working to improve and have an interest in this subject. I do not see a reason to stop them while their efforts are still under way. One other book to consider is The Armenians in history and the Armenian question (Documentary Publications, 1988), which discusses how "Although there are very few Armenians residing in Portugal (less than

200 in 1973), yet the fact that the renowned Gulbenkian Foundation is based ..." Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates