Deletion of Armenia–Portugal relations (2nd nomination)

Comment: Per A Nobody, MichaelQSchmidt, Alansohn, and RAN ( -1958). The article passes  by having sufficient number of 3rd party independent references. I will also reiterate a point I made at a previous Afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Kosovo relations (2nd nomination), that all of these relations articles should either be deleted, or all should be kept. According to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette: "If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. However, group nominations that are too large or too loosely related may be split up or speedy-closed." It was argued that this issue was previously argued and so I shouldn't make it, but no one provided me with a cite to a previous discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: already well exceeds the usual inclusion standard, . No argument presented for why this article merits the unusual and irregular treatment proposed by LibStar
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Sourced article on notable subject.  Nominator's reasons are not convincing.  Per , its always better to improve an article, than nominate it for deletion because someone else has not done so
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: per . Two independent countries that are represented diplomatically. Not relevant that there are no embassies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)