Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Mexico relations (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Estonia–Mexico relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

although this was previously deleted years ago, this latest version is a good faith creation by a different editor. however, the relations are very minor indeed. in 25 years of modern relations, the only high level meeting has been one between their foreign ministers. neither country has a resident embassy. the level of trade USD284 million is a fraction of the USD800 billion total trade Mexico does every year. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about relations between Estonia and Mexico, and less about trade. If we were to look at trade, Mexico does more trade with Estonia than its next door neighbor of Belize which in 2014, amounted to $143 million USD. Relations with a small country in Europe are no less important than relations with any other nation. I don't understand how this one specific article was chosen to be deleted when there are countless articles that state little to no information such as Israel–Sri Lanka relations or Australia–Ireland relations, yet, those article are allowed to remain? This article may have been chosen to be deleted years ago, however, things are different now, an I am known for continuously maintaining articles that I have created. Aquintero82, (talk), 21:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. you will need more than primary sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. the article is not solely about trade, but the fact there has been only one ministerial meeting in 25 years in relations says there is a very small relationship, there is no significant migration, military cooperation or other things that make notable relations. Australia–Ireland relations is an excellent comparison, there has been a long history of migration. in fact 30% of Australians have Irish heritage. do say 1% of Estonians have mexican heritage? LibStar (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Relations with a small country in Europe are no less important than relations with any other nation. I highly dispute that. And consensus from deleted bilateral articles involving small countries thousands of km away proves this. This is different from Belize and Mexico, whilst they may not have large trade there are links being part of Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. And  consensus is that those who share a land border are inherently notable. Belize–Mexico border

LibStar (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is almost all based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the amount of trade is not insignificant; and article discusses beyond trade agreements (notably that Mexico was one of the countries that did not recognize 50 years of Soviet occupation of Estonia as legitimate). Fairly frequent articles on trade and diplomatic meetings and cultural exchanges (these are not primary sources), , , , , ,  —Мандичка YO 😜 09:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for a small country like Estonia with a population of just over a million people, $284 million USD of trade is not insignificant. You also mention that in "25 years of modern relations, the only high level meeting has been one between their foreign ministers"; the article clearly mentions that Estonian Prime Minister Juhan Parts visited Mexico in 2004. Estonia, being a member of the European Union and the OECD, makes it a relevant partner to Mexico as they both collaborate together within those organizations and various others. With regards to the Australia-Ireland relations article; my mention of it was not to state that the article is irrelevant, rather it lacks information. Aquintero82, (talk), 07:43, 1 Decemberr 2016 (UTC)
 * Estonia, being a member of the European Union and the OECD, makes it a relevant partner to Mexico as they both collaborate together within those organizations and various others.  Mexico-EU relations are definitely notable but it's synthesis to suggest that this automatically translate to Mexico Estonia relations notable. Estonia has 24.8 billion Euros of trade a year. which equals USD26.4 billion. therefore USD 284 million of trade with mexico is just 1.1% of all Estonia's trade. is this not insignificant???? LibStar (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand (yet cannot) why of all the countless articles, why this one is being considered for deletion? Relations between countries are always evolving, and as such, so would this article. Contrary to your belief, all relations between nations are significant. Unfortunately, this back and forth commentary will not put an end to this disagreement. Aquintero82, (talk), 21:20, 1 Decemberr 2016 (UTC)
 * no, over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted. There is absolutely zero inherent notability. Again you use the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Other articles you regard as less notable has zero bearing on discussion here. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Here is more reason why the article is relevant: Culture: Mexico to give Estonia 30 murals for its centenary Tax: MÉXICO Y ESTONIA SE UNEN ANTE EVASIÓN Science/Technology: Launching of the Mexican Talent Network in Estonia Business: Estonian logistics firm expands to Mexico Migration: Población inmigrante residente en México según país de nacimiento, 2015 Diplomacy: Välisminister Urmas Paet: Mehhiko on huvitatud tihedamatest ettevõtlussidemetest Eestiga Aquintero82, (talk), 17:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * a massive SIXTEEN migrants from Estonia to Mexico in 2015, are you seriously suggesting this adds to notability? LibStar (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not surprise me that of all the links I provided, that was the only thing you focus on. A country that obtained its independence only in the 1990s which currently has a large ethnic Russian population and once had a large German population, how do you distinguish historic Soviet and German migration from the Soviet Union and now present day Estonia to other countries? Borders and population change even within the same territory and when people migrate, they usually say what nationality they held at the time (German, Soviet, etc...) rather than what the country is now known as. You seem very interested in migration, so you should know this. Furthermore, immigration is not the sole factor of relations between nations. Have a read: Relaciones con los Países Bálticos (República de Estonia, República de Letonia y República de Lituania) (pg. 142-148) and: Cemex and Sakret combine logistics operations, Estonia . Aquintero82, (talk), 16:44, 19 Decemberr 2016 (UTC)
 * Estonia always had a very small percentage of the Soviet Union population, secondly if you're going to provide a link as evidence of notable bilateral relations try not to post something that shows a mere 16 migrants. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep. It's not relevant if the relations are many or few. If relations exist, the page should exist. These are two sovereign countries and the article is about relations between the countries. Since when is wikipedia short of paper? JonSonberg (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If relations exist, the page should exist absolutely not. there is no inherent notability of bilateral relations, this is demonstrated by community consensus of over 100 bilateral articles being deleted. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The crusade continues... Jon Sonberg expresses things well above — it doesn't matter if reportage of A-B international relations is rare, if the relations exist, if there are multiple published sources from which a writer can work, the connection meets our GNG and efforts should not be deleted. This article and those like it is not the way I would choose to spend my volunteer time on wiki — nor is crusading against such articles the way I would choose to spend my volunteer time on wiki. I further resent having to waste my volunteer time on wiki chiming in to beat down a series of more or less specious challenges like this. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - We are starting to get close to an AN/I topic ban discussion on the nominator and this kind of disruptive nomination. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to Carrite -that would be specious given many bilateral articles nominated by myself have been actually deleted. In fact going to ANI would be a waste of administrator valuable time to beat down things that wouldn't result in anything . Your comments do not deter me in the slightest. LibStar (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder what admins would think of your misleading and specious statements at Articles for deletion/Peru–Philippines relations. LibStar (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP is totally voluntary. It is extremely specious to complain about wasted time here when you chose to join WP, perhaps you could use your spare time for something else like fund raising or reading books. LibStar (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2016 (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.