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.
Delete. No assertion of notability. Simply a random pairing of countries. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I woulnd't object to a
G5 speedy deletion but I don't think it meets the letter of the law as although he was banned for creating this sort of article, this article was created before that ban. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
Delete Significant in-depth coverage of the subject of this article, relations between Spain and Armenia, simply doesn't exist in independent reliable sources. The two countries can't even be arsed to exchange ambassadors. This is the last one of these bilateral relations articles we will have to decide on until July 1 and it is a good example of a silly article on a non-notable topic that needs to be zapped. Drawn Some (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another random combination with no significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy closure with no action A standstill for Afds on these articles was proposed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive195#Proposed_standstill_agreement_on_Bilateral_Relations_articles to take effect on June 17, the day before this nomination took place, providing that "New AFDs and DRVs created on FBR articles are eligible for speedy closure with no action". The standstill was actually enacted by an Admin at 09:12 on 18 June 2009. I can see that it is at least debatable whether the standstill was in place on June 17 (the time the proposal referred to), or the time the proposal was approved. However, since the proposal to enact the standstill was explicit as to the time at which it was to take effect (June 17), the weight of the evidence shows that this proposal was to be retroactive to that date. Since this Afd was started on June 18, it would be prudent to speedy close per that discussion. Since I believe the issue of timing is debatable, I would oppose the corresponding sanction being applied to the nominator that was put in place during that discussion ("Persons disruptively violating #1 or #2 are liable to be blocked for a short period"). --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. Look at the data stamps. The WP:AN/I thread was still open and unresolved when this AfD was started. Your argument that the standstill is "retroactive" is absolute non-sense. At 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC), Libstar proposed that the thread be closed at on June 17 (time unspecified), but the discussion wasn't actually closed until 09:12, 18 June 2009. If anyone should be sanctioned it's Cdog for misconstruing the outcome of that discussion.YilloslimeTC 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point out where I "misconstrued" the outcome of the discussion. I think I laid out the facts rather clearly. As far as sanctioning each other, that discussion was an attempt to end the vitriol. Your failure, Yilloslime, to understand or internalize that is distressing. I urge you to assume good faith in the future.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, sorry. I misread your sentence there, reading the word "oppose" for "propose". Sorry about that. I've struck my comment re:sanctioning. As for misconstruing the debate outcome, I was referring to your argument that the standstill applies retroactively. Nowhere in that discussion or the admin's close was there any talk of the standstill applying retroactively. Rather, it was explicit that AfDs and DRVs already running would not be affected. YilloslimeTC 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the discussion to suggest that is should apply retroactively. But, on the other hand, it wasn't really a good idea to create this, as you were aware of the ANI thread (you commented in it). But the standstill was only (in my eyes) supposed to prevent venom in discussions anyways, and the discussion is looking so far like delete, so let's just drop it for now, eh? Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 20:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Water under the bridge. You are right that the idea that there should be retroactive applicability for the standstill is only implied by the choice of a concrete date (June 17) for the results of discussion to take effect. However, I think it's pretty strongly implied. Since a consensus had clearly been reached by that date (the last edit in the discussion was on June 16), the decision to close was a mere formality. The lateness of the close was due to the Admin not taking notice of the discussion, not the community consensus which was to close on a specific date, June 17.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely random and non-notable. (As an admin myself, I'd note that the "standstill" is entirely voluntary on the part of the editors concerned, although a very good idea given the level of hostility on the topic, and the completely obvious lack of notability of this particular relation should be a guiding factor per Wikipedia policy. I'd say the standstill would necessarily apply to topics which *could feasibly* be notable.) Orderinchaos 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read that discussion as being "voluntary", unless you mean that you can voluntarily get yourself blocked by violating its terms.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that creator of this page User:Groubani was banned subsequent to his creation of this page (for unrelated sockpuppetry) has no impact on the notability of the subject matter of this article and should be disregarded as a reason for possible deletion. This article should be judged on its merits, not on the merits of those associated with it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The wording of G5 is pretty clear and it doesn't apply here. Orderinchaos 04:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep and close. This comes under the terms of the standstill .he agreement was not intended to apply to things nearly closures, but to game it by afding an article this close to the end was not a good choice of action. If people disagree on this, close as non-consensus, because articles like this are why we had the stand still, having no consensus on them. DGG (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of the standstill was to let people cool off and reduce the level of acrimony surrounding these articles. Accusing me of gaming the standstill certainly doesn't further that cause. It'd be one thing if I'd AfDed a bunch of articles during the discussion. But I've AfDed only this one, and only after the PROD tag was removed--a PROD tag that was added before the standstill discussion was started, and that was removed during the discussion (by DGG). So it seems like a perfectly reasonable course of action to take this to AfD. You're assuming that I can tell the future: "by afding an article this close to the end"—when I AfDed this article the discussion was ongoing. I had no way of know if, when, or how the that discussion was going to be closed. And it was looking like the thread might be archived with no action, having wound down without any admin brave enough to close it at that point. YilloslimeTC 17:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the admin who closed the standstill discussion to weigh in on whether this article is covered by it. YilloslimeTC 17:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
doing it at the time you did, to try to get under the deadline, still looks to me like gaming the system. In any case, the article is improvable, since the existence of the relations given implies there will be more. Nations don;t sign such treaties unless there is a reason to do so. DGG (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG you're trying to invent an artificial deadline. there is an official deadline and that's what people should go on. Yilloslime or anyone else is entitled to nominate before this deadline. if anything because there are now very few other bilateral AfDs...this gives this article the best chance ever of being rescued if it can. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the standstill was expressed to apply to AFDs opened after it started, so it doesn't apply to this.
Keep I'm striking out my vote above per the comment of lifebaka. In case anyone decides to look at the article that they are voting to delete, these two countries have historic ties that have been documented by independent 3rd party sources that go back over a millennium. The Armenian king Leo V (or VI) married a Spanish wife and was later ransomed from Egyptian captivity by the Spanish king Juan I. Even before that, the two countries were part of the
WP:N. It is also verifiable and cited that the two countries have had current bilateral relations for over 15 years. There are large numbers of Armenians living in Spain (independently verified) and the two countries have embassies within the other country. Does it serve any purpose whatsoever to erase this article? If anyone can answer that question I'd like to hear it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's how I'd answer that: I'm a firm believer in the spirit, logic, and application of
collection of somewhat related facts with no context or interpretation to hold them together. And this is exactly what we have here. YilloslimeTC 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, Yilloslime's appeal to
Wikipedia:IINFO#IINFO is also misplaced (and the policy is disputed anyway). This is not a lyric database or the plot of a TV movie. These are the relations between two nation states. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment The nominator, Yilloslime, has repeatedly removed material from this article (a map of the Umayyad Caliphate and a sentence explaining that both countries were once part of the Umayyad Caliphate). I have started a discussion regarding the restoration of this material. In my opinion, the situation presents a conflict of interest for Yilloslime and the deletion of this article should not be based on a version that has been degraded by the nominator. Please comment here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a conflict of interest to work on article that's currently at AfD, even for for the nominator to work on it. And I consider removing off-topic/irrelevant material from an article to be cleaning it up, a form of article improvement. YilloslimeTC 21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umayyad Caliphate (green) at its greatest extent, c. 750.Just so everyone knows what we're talking about, Yilloslime has removed this map from the article three times.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of multiple, independent sources actually covering "Armenia–Spain relations". We can pretend an entity existing 1300 years ago (the Umayyad Caliphate) has something to do with today's Republic of Armenia (independent since 1991) and the Kingdom of Spain, but really, let's not. We can also showcase our Google-searching talents by plucking out bits of trivia from decades-old news stories with no contextual relevance, but again, see
WP:NOT for that. We can find trivial details of the sort that we'd never notice outside these inane "rescue" efforts, but no, a ministerial meeting is not evidence of an actual phenomenon, no matter how hard we try to pretend. So let's put a stop to the silliness and delete. - BiruitorulTalk 23:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete. Fails
WP:RS sources, about the subject itself. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete fails due to lack of significant coverage in RS. Doesn't meet
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.
