Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Mexico 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Mexico relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

another completely laughable random combination from the obsessive creator. extremely limited relations, only minor agreements, non resident embassies and no trade agreements. http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_176/2558.html LibStar (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. If it is a "completely random combination", why has the Estonian Foreign Ministry got information on it? Did this information randomly create itself? The MFA lists several agreements, since when does a trade agreement confer notability and the other agreement on culture, education, sports and technology do not? Martintg (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a completely laughable combination of random trivia. Mergellus (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete So what does "completely laughable" mean? "Estonia and Mexico, LOL!!!" or "Estonia and Mexico? ROFL!!!!"   I missed the mirth on this one.  Still, there's not much here | Estonian foreign ministry statement beyond some small agreements and visits, not enough to merit its own article. Mandsford (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of references discussing this relationship; the fact of non-recognition of the occupation is noted here. - Biruitorul Talk 15:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No information on this relationship outside of sources linked to the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It's not a notable relationship. --Russavia Dialogue 08:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Found some Estonian language references. In the process of adding them now. Martintg (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not uninteresting, but let's pick this apart. We have a friendship treaty, which by its very name indicates it's likely purely symbolic (we don't have secondary sources saying otherwise). Sure, the 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship is notable, but Estonia-Mexico I have my doubts about. (By the way, was it actually signed in Washington, or in Washington, D.C.?) Next come the names of a couple of ambassadors - interesting, I'm sure, but there's no indication they themselves are notable; moreover, something like List of current ambassadors from Poland should do the trick. That Ilves and Luik have served in Mexico is easily mentionable in their own biographies. And then the usual routine state visits: yes, they happened, but can their relevance be demonstrated through secondary sources? - Biruitorul Talk 15:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, and the expansion is cruft, based on things that are either irrelvant or out of place. Dahn (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. Everything in this article belongs into articles specific to one of the two countries or is excessive detail. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: Two of he three "keep" votes are clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2009 (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.