Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Portugal

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greater_Portugal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Simple reason: There has never been a movement, even less a single entity other than fringe groups claiming this kind of "Greater Portugal". There are no scientific, historic or other articles talking about this; no historic antecedent, and it's not even an ideology amongst people both sides of the border. It's clearly just a project made by a small number of people trying to act as if this has ever existed, to push some random agenda. --HolonZeias (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete This is way out of my fields of expertise, but the fact that the only name attached to it is an Englishman whose quoted words do not support the thesis in the least is a poor sign. One would think there would be Portuguese exponents who were known for their espousal of the notion. Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete A search for Portugal Maior returns no results, thus failing WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main source cited is not talking about the same concept described in this article. The cited source, George Young's Portugal Old and Young, states, "The princes of Portugal were no longer to have only one temptation to resist, the old temptation of looking on Portugal as a point de départ for an Empire over the Iberian peninsula, they were also to have to resist the new temptation of treating Portugal as the port of entry to Europe of an Empire in the South American continent. ... In other words, the foundations of a Portuguese Republic were laid when Vasco da Gama made the Monarchy an autocracy by pouring into its pockets the wealth of the Indies, and when the Portuguese viceroys founded the greater Portugal overseas." In other words, the "Greater Portugal" that Young was talking about was the Portuguese colonial empire that included Brazil -- not the incorporation of northwestern Spain. The only other source cited is a book about English history, J.R. Seeley's The Expansion of England, which uses the phrase "Greater Portugal" only incidentally without specifically defining it. Also, despite this article portraying "Greater Portugal" as a current proposal, neither cited source is less than 100 years old. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article seems to be about two things: Greater Portugal and Portugalicia. It does not seem that Greater Portugal is notable, but Portugalicia (Portugaliza [pt]) is definitely notable and is definitely a real thing. The article should be renamed and reworded so that Portugalcia, which one can easily find sources for, is the main focus. Greater Portugal should redirect to the Portugalicia article. // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 13:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of them exist in Portuguese culture or politics, the Portuguese "Portugaliza" article was made alongside the English version at the same time, by the same people, with the same references which aren't about the subject in the first place. The only place where Portugaliza seems to be a popular term or concept is among Alternate History communities, or DeviantArt. --HolonZeias (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issue here is that the wording does not exist in itself in Portuguese language, "Portugal Maior" it's actually gramatically wrong, the Portugaliza name although known in the Internet is not used either, as a potential unification of both Portugal and Galiza would just be named Portugal and had an autonomous region of Galiza as well. This is actually my field of expertise, and even though there is no general consensus for a name, the fact is the unification with Galiza, the return of Olivença and annexation of small Portuguese/Galician speaking enclaves along the eastern border as well as the reintegration of Cape Verde, São Tomé e Principe and even Timor and Cabinda is an idea in Portuguese society. Even though it's not well known it does exist, some focus more on the Iberian territories, some focus more on the out of Europe areas, some only care about one specific territory, but all combined generate this idea of all Portuguese people under the same country. (Check Nova Portugalidade). As for the name of the page, I believe it is just an english expression used for a lot of different countries and that in the end makes some sense, so I would keep it. Gomes89 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gomes89: and thank you for your advice. Do you have any reliable source to back those claims ? Regards, Comte0 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no reliable sources have been cited and as such this article fails WP:V. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2020 (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.