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 keep.  Sandstein  11:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–France relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Describes relations between two cultural lineages rather than two states. Appears to be WP:SYNTH in that it presumes a link between Cilician Armenia and modern Armenia, despite there being no clear political connection between the two. The bulk of the article does not describe verifiable international relations between two states. Examples:

• The Middle Ages section describes Cilician Armenia - Crusader relations among other non-issues;
• The Ottoman section does not describe verifiable relations;
• The Armenian genocide section is mostly irrelevant as no Armenian state existed at the time that was empowered to maintain international relations;
• The Armenians in France section does not equate to relations between Armenia and France.

All in all, there is almost nothing in the article constituting verifiable international relations between the French state and the Armenian state (or their political predecessors). ClaretAsh 12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Or start over. There may be notability here, but right now it looks like unsourced WP:OR. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but cull. Relations were established 20 years ago and there have been many high level visits.--TM 20:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It needs improvement, but I don't think deleting the article is necessary.Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to clarify, I don't dispute that WP should have on article on this topic. I just think there is nothing in this particular version worth keeping. However, if people here agree, I'll withdraw my nom and rewrite the article from scratch. I don't expect the resulting article to be more than a paragraph or two, though. ClaretAsh 05:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article as it is now is bit of a disaster area, but the subject itself is entirely valid and notable. The subject is NOT restricted to international relations between two states, as a perusal of the various other Wikipedia "county xxxx-country yyyy relations" articles will show. Ash's argument for deletion is not valid. If it is admitted that the subject IS notable enough to have a Wikipedia article then the current content of the article is unimportant as far as deletion arguments go. See: WP:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Meowy 16:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It doesn't matter that the Armenian genocide occurred before there was an Armenian state, because France's present-day reaction to it is of unquestionable significance to its relationship with the state that exists now. Regardless, I also dispute that such an article can or should only be limited to formal interactions between the presently-existing modern states, for the same reason that we don't limit History of Armenia or History of France only to those modern legal entities. Is History of France WP:SYNTH for linking Roman Gaul or the Bourbon dynasty to the Fifth Republic? Nonsense. We are not inventing that continuity; historians already have.

  I also question the merit in a strict adherence to WP:N for such foreign relation articles. The usual concerns, such as self-promotion of insignificant individuals or organizations or lack of verifiable NPOV information, would seem to me not to apply to the relationship (both historical and present) of two countries even if there is not "significant coverage" in reliable secondary sources on that relationship per se. So even if it can only be pieced together from news accounts, "trivial" mentions in secondary sources, and primary source government documents, I don't see why that's a problem for this kind of subject. If there is a counterargument, I'd like to hear it. postdlf (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- This article is a horrible hotch-potch. Most of it is about French relations with the Armenian people, who historically were scattered across a wide swathe of what is now eastern Turkey and adjacent countries. We could probably make a satsifactory article out of this, but this needs to refer to a lot more than what was formerly Russian Armenia, and now the state of that name. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs work, but deleting is a bit of an overreaction. VartanM (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article may have problems, but this is very clearly a notable subject - as anyone would realize just from following the news. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.