Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 19:32, 5 May 2022

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton |  13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Greco-Brazilian relations

Greco-Brazilian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Brazil. The diaspora group has its own article - Greeks in Brazil. Biruitorul 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, effectively nothing to say about this than the locations of embassies, which violates WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, following the nom sufficient sourced information is now in place to easily show the notability of this relationship, such as cooperation in trade and Greeces significant support for Brazil to gain a permanent place on the UN security council. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The sources aren't independent (both come from the Greek government, with both breaching WP:GNG and one breaching WP:PSTS), and in any case, foreign ministers visit each other every week of every year. Something more substantive would be appreciated. - Biruitorul 03:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Only one of the two sources is a secondary source, and it details only one small event. Still fails WP:N. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. --Yannismarou (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. We are an almanac-like reference work, and this is an almanac entry. Notability isn't the same for almanac entries, just facts. For instance, towns in the world only have to exist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including , , , , , LibStar (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would you expect my argument to be any different here or any of the other articles? It is just as equally valid here and at the other postings. 1 + 1 will still equal 2, here or anywhere else. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• • We're also not a directory, and multiple, independent sources are still required. No policy presumes bilateral relations to be notable, and in any case, the salient fact - embassies - is recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece & of Brazil. -

Biruitorul 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• A telephone book is a directory. This is a stub written in prose. Almanac entries don't require the same notability as articles. They just need to be true. All township entries require, is that they exist, and the census data is piped in, just like these articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems reasonably notable, especially with the "high-level contacts" section. With more information on their relations developing in the coming years, this article has the potential to grow. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "The coming years" don't concern us; we're not a crystal ball. What does exist comes from primary sources, which breaches WP:GNG. Also, foreign ministers visit each other literally every week of every year; it's not that unusual, and it's news we'd never think of recording outside this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul 02:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • According to WP:PRIMARY, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Many of the claims using primary sources within this article are just plain facts, so long as no one makes any exceptional claim then the source can be used. For instance when a primary source gives a known fact, such as "Greece has an Embassy in Brasilia" that is a fact so the primary source can be used. According to WP:PG, "If a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, then the policy should in most cases take precedence over the guideline." this means that in some (but not all) cases WP:GNG may be outweighed by WP:V. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is notable, like most articles just needs expansion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
  PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.