Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium – Republic of Texas relations


 * 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   merge to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. Courcelles 03:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Belgium – Republic of Texas relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

there is nothing to this relationship except a 9 year period of relations of no siginificant events and 1 embassy, no chance of expansion. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing except a nine year period? Seems notable then. The "no chance of expansion" is not a valid reason for deletion, otherwise 99% of stub articles would get listed.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not reasons. this topic clearly fails WP:GNG I don't see any evidence of signficant coverage. see WP:MUSTBESOURCES, where are the sources? LibStar (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But you've not cited a single policy in your nomination as to WHY it's not notable. That was the point I was making.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * fails WP:GNG. no significant coverage of this topic. you've given no evidence of actual sources to establish a keep case. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep It is possible it would be expanded, but unlikely. However, as noted above, that is not the qualification for an article. One of the first nations to recognize another country is a pretty notable relationship. I am now plainly in favor of keeping the page per Colonel Warden's research.--TM 15:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems easy to find sources for this such as Early Belgian colonial efforts. The nominator does not seem to have followed WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * that's one source. hardly enough to justify an article. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems quite easy to find more sources, as you should know, if you had looked. For example, "Belgian influences on Texas have been notable". Warden (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't mention the Republic of Texas, which is what the article is about. Trying to save an article by presenting sources that don't mention the subject is pretty dodgy, as you know full well. Reyk  YO!  18:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Texas still exists as a sovereign entity. Its status within the US federal system is now rather like that of Belgium's position within the European Union.  These entities have had notable relations over time, as the source states, and so limiting the scope of the article in a narrow way does not seem sensible.  Developing the article to cover this full notable history is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy rather than deletion.  For example, your nitpick might be addressed by moving to the simpler title Belgium - Texas relations which would then better cover the early colonial history too.  See Historical Associations of Belgium and Texas for yet another source which supports this scope and usage. Warden (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Insisting that articles be based on sources that are actually about the subject is "nitpicking" now? I think that sums up your attitude to this project. Reyk  YO!  21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas in an effort to expand said article. (Also, as an aside, the two articles currently seem to conflict as to where the first embassy in Belgium was located...) -- Kinu  t/c 18:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just removed the claim about embassies as it wasn't supported by the source provided. I think that merging this to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas would be the best option - this article has almost no content, and it can be split out again if anyone ever decides to work on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. There is nothing in this article that warrants a separate encyclopedia article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge – data to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas before deleting the article, otherwise it won't be accessible to do so. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. Reyk  YO!  01:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested above, not enough substance to justify an individual article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested, until Rick Perry declares Texan independence again. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2011 (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.