Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–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   no consensus. Some of the later notes ask for a rationale here explaining what is good and bad in the debate, and since I am probably known for writing way too long AFD closing rationales anyway, I'll give it a go.

First a mathematics lesson: If there are 200 nations in the world, the possible number of "Xinia-Yinia relations" articles is not 2002=40000, since that would mean that "UK-USA relations" and "USA-UK relations" are different things needing separate articles, and that "UK-UK" relations is possible. The correct number can be found by using combinatorics, so "200 choose two" is 19 900 articles.

Second, my role as an AFD closer is to evaluate consensus. This is not a pure vote count, but I do think the amount of support a viewpoint gets is indicative of how well it is accepted by the community. In general "rough consensus" means a "general agreement", and if the community is roughly evenly divided, as is the case here, a "no consensus" outcome is the usual result. This may be fudged a little, but I only do that when the arguments presented are lopsidedly stronger on one side.

Third, I disagree strongly that this AFD nomination is "shameless to the point of vandalism". The last AFD was a year ago, and ended with a "no consensus" result. It is accepted practice to renominate in that situation.

The delete side have argued that the foreign relations between these two countries are not notable. The number of possible "Xinia-Yinia relations" articles is after all very large, and where the diplomatic and economic contact between the countries is very limited, they are unlikely to be of much interest. A few of the diehard inclusionists think most, if not all, such bilateral relationships are notable per se, but that is a small minority, and in my experience, not one which enjoys any consensus. The question must therefore be whether the Iceland-Mexico relations are notable.

For the specific arguments (and I apologize that I'm probably not comprehensive here): In total, my personal opinion here is that these foreign relations are not high priority; diplomatic relations between the countries are sporadic and light. Nonetheless, reasonable arguments have been presented by the "keep" side, and since they enjoy support, I'm closing this with the predicted "no consensus" result. Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No mutual embassies. Indicates that diplomatic contact is there, but so limited that the bilateral relations can be done by another embassy. I find the counter-argument "what about Iran-USA?" to be rather off-the-point since those relations are notable for entirely different reasons (sanctions, mutual distrust, 1979 crisis, etc.)
 * No major trade relations, Iceland is only in 118th place on the Mexican list. It is pointed out that this does not detract from notability. I'll add that it probably does not enhance notability either.
 * Information should be included in the two countries "foreign relations of X" article. Certainly a possibility, since many articles are covered this way. This solution will require serious trimming.
 * Canvassing has apparently taken place. Point noted, but the participants here appear to be good faith editors.
 * A foreign state visit. Good faith editors disagree on whether this contributes to notability.
 * There is sourcing backing up most of the article, so I see no reason to delete on grounds of verifiability.
 * There has generally not been a consensus that sources need to mention the phrase "Iceland-Mexico relations" or similar in order to be counted as a valid source, as long as the topic is related to the subject.

Iceland–Mexico relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

this article hinges on 4 sources, one of them merely confirms they established diplomatic relations and confirms no embassies. the "agreement for the promotion and mutual protection of investments" is common between any 2 nations doing even a small amount of trade. both countries being affected by the Gulf Stream somehow being related in bilateral relations is a bit of WP:SYNTH. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Having entries on the Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Mexico seems to cover all the information. If the sources were linked there there would be no loss of content since the article doesn't really say anything than "Relations Exist."--Savonneux (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't find anything to add to an article that basically says "relations exist". And it's also hard to justify keeping Country X-Country Y articles when neither has an embassy in the other country. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  10:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete "Iceland has a non resident ambassador in Washington D.C., Mexico has a non resident ambassador in Copenhagen, Denmark." Nuff said. Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a silly way to judge a relationship. The US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba. Nuff said. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Really Richard? this is an extremely weak comparison, the reason the US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran and North Korea is for a long time they did not have any diplomatic relations and applied sanctions and embargoes to these countries. none of this applies to Mexico-Iceland. secondly very few countries have embassies in Bhutan given that it is so small, so mentioning it here has zero relationship with Mexico-Iceland. this is another case of classical straw man argument where choosing selective examples to compare... in fact this only weakens your case. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When people stop using the canard of embassies and ambassadors as markers for notability I will not need to mention it anymore. It isn't a straw man argument. In a straw man I take the weakest argument and attack it. Only one argument was presented. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Learn how to indent Richard please. it's straw man as you are oversimplifying an opponent's argument by comparing it to very selective instances of non-existence of embassies, then attacking this oversimplified version. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the argument is "[Delete because] Iceland has a non resident ambassador in Washington D.C., Mexico has a non resident ambassador in Copenhagen, Denmark." and my argument is "It is a silly way to judge a relationship. The US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba." It is not the strawman at all. It is a direct counterargument based on the exact presented facts, no strawman was created and demolished. It is no different than someone arguing that we can't have articles on countries based on the letter Z, and my counter argument is we already have articles on Zambia and Zimbabwe. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable CountryX-CountryY, no significant secondary source coverage. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't understand why these are created when there is nothing more to say than "relations exist". The information can easily be included in Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Mexico. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep again The same nominator is sending this to AFD again? Its the same article is before.  Make sure to tell all those who participated in it last time, its time to do this over again.  I'm just going to copy and paste my comments from last time, since nothing has changed, and my statements still stand.   D r e a m Focus  04:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading the article, I see many things that make this relationship notable enough to be mentioned in its own article. Please read through the article, before just deciding you don't like articles of this type, and trying to delete it.  The content makes it notable, not the opinions of others. And unless you have done a proper search in the language of these two nations, for things mentioned in the newspapers of the countries involved, you aren't going to be finding a lot of third party media coverage.  But surely such events would in fact be mentioned there.  Does anyone doubt this?  Is there any reasonable doubt at all that meetings and treaties between two nations, would be covered in major newspapers of those countries, thus satisfying the current notability guidelines?  ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫   D r e a m Focus  01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * leaders and ministers between nations (given that are about 200 nations in the world) meet thousands of time a year, a few visits does not necessarily constitute notable relations. simply being reported in newspapers of individual meetings is not necessarily sufficient. if say 2 presidents met yearly that would be a strong indicator of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * also consensus can change. there is no rule against renomination as much as you hate AfDs. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep nominating it until you get the outcome you want. I thought there was a rule about that somewhere.  Anyway, when you say "consensus can change", do you mean that the random bunch of people that appear to express their opinions may give you a different outcome, or do you believe that the opinions of those who previously participated might change?  And a meeting that affects the interactions between two countries, thus has a notable impact on history, and belongs in this encyclopedia.  If treaties were made, then its notable, not just someone getting together to have tea and exchange pleasantries.   D r e a m Focus  19:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * consensus has shown through deleted bilateral articles that a few treaties (and these are agreements which are weaker and harder to enforce) do not make for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus has shown through bilateral articles you failed to delete, that if enough people are around to notice and participate in the AFD, then they are usually kept, because the relationship between two nations is automatically notable by rules of common sense above all else.  D r e a m Focus  05:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any material being deleted. Smaller articles were merged into larger articles. None of the material was deleted. The ones that were just a few sentences were merged in Foreign relations of Mexico. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Unlike yesterday, has more information. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  04:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * don't see how this argument addresses WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want another argument? Well, The article have much more information than others that I saw recently (one is Samoa – United States relations). I don't think that Wikipedia is US-Centrist, but I don't know why this article is not nominated too. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS LibStar (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a personal essay and it not Wikipedia policy. Every legal proceeding allows precedence and Wikipedia has common outcomes. Pointing to a weaker article has its flaws, but pointing to a similar article edited by multiple people is a good argument showing precedence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Obioulsy, I know my comment (almost) apply there. I'm not saying "S-U exist. this too", I'm saying "If this article will be delete, Samoa-United States relations have to be deleted to. Of course I'm not going to waste my time nominating any article for deletion. It's stupid, it's unequal. THAT'S IT. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  22:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not use WP:OTHERSTUFF as a shield. The guy makes a point in his argument and If your only reply is OTHERSTUFF, it discredits your own delete vote since you have on other way to deal with the Keep !Vote.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 23:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

it's hardly a shield, we are here to debate the merits of this article not other articles you think are weaker. "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". LibStar (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And you are useing that statement there to steer a perfectly good and honest statement towards an poorly writen and vaguely outlined policy that allows you to not only avoid statements like the one above but to discredit the !votes of others. I'm perfectly fine with allowing you to use OTHERSTUFF as a reason why his !vote is not sufficient to keep the article but to have your only reply be a link to a policy is robotic in nature and rude.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 18:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin has engaged in WP:CANVASSing: . While the message left on these users' pages was neutral, the message was only placed on the pages of users who !voted "keep" at this recent, related AfD. In fact all of the canvassed users generally or exclusively !vote to keep Bilateral relations article, so this a clear example of votestacking. Furthermore, RAN has added the  tag to the article. As the article was already tagged for ARS rescue during the last AfD, re-tagging it now seems like a just another means to canvass sympathetic editors.Yilloslime T C  04:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says: "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." (my emphasis added) My message meets the guideline of informing without influencing, cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * CANVASS Yilloslime T C  15:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to point that out as well but got snagged in the edit conflict. A neutral message sent to only one "side" of a discussion is precisely what that guideline spells out as unacceptable behavior.  This is a fairly blatant violation. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All the usual suspects are here, whether they were contacted via Wikipedia or ex parte. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard you're clearly fooling no one, this is the most blatant violation I have seen of '''In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters.''' LibStar (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard, if you feel that this behaviour is not canvassing then please keep it up with other AfDs...but I would strongly recommend you don't. Editors in the past have been blocked for canvassing. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Relations appear to exist, but mere existence isn't enough for inclusion. There doesn't seem to be anything notable here. I'd also like to note that canvassing has obviously occurred. AniMate  05:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Please note this delete is NOT on the grounds of notability. It is on the grounds that the material is short in scope and can be more appropriately dealt with at the main articles of the two countries (Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Mexico). There is no demonstrated need for a spin-off article. Simply because notability for a topic can be demonstrated does not mean a stand-alone article is the appropriate way to present the information. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And for what it's worth, it doesn't appear that canvassing for keep votes has so far influenced the discussion here (although it's still inappropriate). If anything it's helped bring an opposing viewpoint to the table that otherwise wouldn't have been represented. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- there are something like 200 sovereign states in the world and it's a fair bet that they've all made friendly noises at all the others at some point. Does that mean we should have 40,000 articles of this sort? Of course not. Vague expressions of agreeableness between that countries that haven't really got much do do with one another, and don't even have embassies in the other, are nothing to base an article on. Reyk  YO!  06:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith here, but, it may be helpful to take a community college refresher mathematics course, it can be a big help. Since Iran-Iraq relations is identical to Iraq-Iran relations, and because we don't have Iraq-Iraq relations, there would be 19,900 articles with 200 entities. That is how permutations work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * delete — This bilateral relations meme to create yet moar articles needs to end. It is a trick of the obsessive-minded to endlessly inflate things. Really, what's next? An article on the significance of corn to Iceland? The polar bears of Mexico? Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument is a fallacy called the slippery slope. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep article about notable relationship between two countries that is supported by proper sources and has many more available for continued expansion and further improvement. Even the briefest of searches finds that Mexico has a consulate in Iceland, the two countries have a mutual income tax treaty, there is an agricultural agreement between the two countries, the President of Iceland has spoken in Mexico City speaking about the collaboration between Iceland and Mexico, there is a mutual invetsment protection agreement between the two countries, there is a geothernmal energy agreement between the two countries, etc, etc, etc.  The arguments to keep at the last AFD and the ones to keep at this one are as strong and pertinent as ever.  I trust the closer to make a careful examination of the earlier AFD and this one. Nothing has changed except the number of editors repeating the samed failed arguments from the prior AFD.  AFD is NOT A VOTE... its not weight of numbers all piling in to repeat the same argument... it's a careful consideration of the facts and arguments as presented.  And so please, lets's stop this one being repeatedly sent to AFD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And has been pointed out to you and other inclusions along the way, diplomatic relationships and treaties are a routine matter of course, and do not establish notability. The pointless arguments are on your side, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct when you say: "diplomatic relationships and treaties ... do not establish notability". It is the mentioning of diplomatic relationships and treaties in reliable sources that make things notable. Notability is when the media notices an event and reports on it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The leader of one nation visits another and speaks about collaboration between their two countries, and they form agreements between them. I would think that would count as a notable relationship between them.  Are the actions of nations and their leaders insignificant now, just because you consider it so routine?  I would think it notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and having a place that list all the agreements and ties between two nations something of obvious educational value for any looking up that information.   D r e a m Focus  19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Routine. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To develop Tarc's argument, Jennifer Anniston and Hugh Grant may both be notable. If Anniston lends Grant $100, they both go to a party, and have some friends in common, and it's all documented in reliable independent sources, that still doesn't provide support for creating Anniston-Grant relationship.  Some information is trivial no matter how well-sourced it is, and if it's to be covered at all it can be adequately covered in the main arguments rather than in a spin-off article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, many relationship articles between people do exist. [Angelina and Brad] for example, plus I've seen a lot for various musicians. That has nothing to do with this though.  The relationship between countries is far greater than anything to do with celebrities.  Totally different things we're dealing with here.   D r e a m Focus  05:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We have intersection articles such as Martin and Lewis and Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen and Rat Pack and many others. It is much better to centralize information than duplicate it over multiple articles. That is why we have Category:Celebrity duos. Anniston and Grant doesn't appear because there are just a few sentences that can be written. However, we do have Brangelina and over 100 others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. What I'm saying is that a documented relationship between two notable parties is not of itself inherently notable.  Notability is not inherited; reports of relations between Iceland and Mexico may only attest to the notability of Iceland and Mexico, not the notability of the relationship between them.  The relevant test is whether there is another material on the relationship to found a substantive article of a length that makes covering it in the existing articles impractical. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no such requirement that we need a "substantive article" to determine notability. 10 facts from 10 sources have the same depth of coverage as 10 facts from a single source. A single source is just more convenient when writing an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Canvassing aside, most objective editors agree that you can't build an article around a trivial fact that relations exist, plus a huge quote from a speech one day. Relations are notable if you can verify something of note. Wikipedia is not a directory of every treaty ever signed. We already have an article about the foreign relations of Mexico in general. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep this one is much weaker than Croatia–Mongolia relations. In general, I believe that any two countries which have established diplomatic and trade relations have relations enough to be notable. If they had ambassadors and embassies in each country, I would stay it is a strong keep. However, it is borderline. May I make a suggestion however? There are A LOT of bilateral relations articles which are easily more notable than this one which are not written yet. I've been working to create Chinese-African articles. South Africa and the UK don't even have a bilateral relations article!--TM 14:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD. At this point in the discussion ten additional sources have been added to the article. It now contains 26 references compared to the original 4. Spanish language articles from Mexican newspapers and English language sources from Google News Archive have been added. The closing administrator may want to compare the nominated version versus the current version. Here is the nominated version and here is the version at which this notice has been placed. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). All the votes cast are for the version with 4 references. (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that none of this addresses my deletion argument above, which was not based on a lack of notability. My Delete still stands post-expansion. The delete votes of Savoneux and Good ol'Factory also do not appear to be able to be addressed merely by expansion and addition of sources (I'm hopefully not misrepresenting them). Other votes suggesting that the topic is inherently non-notable (which I don't necessarily agree with) are also perhaps not addressed by an article improvement.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no rule concerning inherent non-notability, only an essay concerning inherent notability, so there is no issue that needs to be addressed, just a new theory that can be explored in its own personal essay. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. What is needed is more substance, not more citations of what is already there, and weak.  There's a gulf of difference between the relationship of these two, and, say Poland–Ukraine relations.  In the end, as a wise author once observed, "there's just no there, there". Tarc (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with DustFormsWords, many of the additions are mere padding, the long quotation from Pricewaterhousecoopers really adds little value and "On the trip Olafur Ragnar Grimsson gave an interview to Organización Editorial Mexicana and said that "geothermal energy has a future in Mexico." is a mere statement that says nothing about concrete actions for bilateral relations, Iceland have said similar statements all around the world given that they are a leader in geothermal energy. The funniest is this statement "Iceland was ranked 118th in total trade with Mexico and was ranked 4th among the countries of European Free Trade Association". there are 4 countries in EFTA so what is really saying that Iceland is the worst performer! this is trying to inflate the status of Mexico Iceland trade when on closer inspection reveals the opposite. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Better to use the exact wording of the original source. As you argued once before, introducing bias and synthesis can be a hazard in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The standard for inclusion is notability, which is defined as significant coverage of the topic in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While this article has bunch of sources, on inspection none of them meet this standard. Many are not independent, e.g. ,. Some are primary sources, e.g . Others do not provide significant coverage, e.g.  (word count = 34) or  (108 words.) And many are not on the topic itself, but rather on specific visits or mention Mexico-Iceland relations only trivial in passing, e.g.  or . Per guidelines, we need at least two independent sources that actually address these countries' relationship in a direct, non-trivial manner, and we just don't have that here. Yilloslime T C  06:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough information for a full stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me address these issues directly: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article uses primary sources. There is no prohibition about using primary sources for articles. Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The only primary documents used in this article are the text of a speech and a photograph of the meeting.
 * Deriding a fact by saying it adds little value or saying it is padding, is 100% subjective. It was published in reliable media on the subject. It was vetted by Google News as reliable. You are deriding the original media source, Organizacion Editorial Mexicana. OEM is the largest Mexican print media company and the largest newspaper company in Latin America. Deriding it as a source is just silly and US centric. You wouldn't say that about the largest US newspaper, the Wall Street Journal or CNN, the most visited news website.
 * Others are not significant ... word count = 34 There is no magic number of words that has to be reached for a reference to be reliable or the subject notable. The discovery of the structure of DNA was published as just a page and 1/2. It is one of the most important scientific publications of the past 100 years. Terse doesn't mean unreliable.
 * See Canada – Iceland relations for a smaller article with even fewer references for a typical article on relations.
 * The funniest is this statement "Iceland was ranked 118th in total trade with Mexico and was ranked 4th among the countries of European Free Trade Association". We report what reliable media report, Wikipedia is not about superlatives, that is the Guinness Book of World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not at all deriding the sources nor their accuracy, I am commenting on how they are used to build a case for notable bilateral relations. Iceland commenting on geothermal energy in Mexico undoubtedly happened but I fail to see how this relates to concrete bilateral actions. Reliable sources in Mexico report the Eyjafjallajokull volcano, so do we report this in this article? I am surprised you have not added sporting results between these countries as you have diligently pushed in other bilateral articles. A long quotation from Pricewaterhousecoopers means very little except to accountants and not the general reader of WP. your use of example is a true classical straw man argument. for an article that I literally created TWO days ago, it cannot be turned into a full article in 1 week. truly selective and truly a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. if you feel it does not meet the very high minimum notability standard of Richard Norton, feel free to nominate Canada – Iceland relations for deletion. "ranked 4th among the countries of European Free Trade Association" should say 4 of 4th or last. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no rule against sporting results in relations articles either, ask any fan of World Cup Soccer what teams are traditional rivals, or read Blood in the Water match for example. Why the Olympic hockey game between Russia and US is not mentioned in the Russia – United States relations, I don't know. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't a strawman argument, in the strawman scenario I just attack the weakest of multiple arguments. Here I attack all the arguments, so it is just a normal refutation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed my argument; namely that the material is short in scope and would be more appropriately covered in the existing articles on this topic. You also haven't addressed the argument that the sources merely establish the notability of the Foreign relations of Mexico and the Foreign relations of Iceland, not necessarily the notability of Iceland-Mexico relations. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would we want to duplicate a large article by cutting and pasting the information into two articles that are even larger? Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland are already large and unwieldy, and why would we want the same information duplicated in the two articles? What good would come from taking the article Rat Pack and duplicating the text in 4 biographies? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient commercial relations,which is one key type of foreign relations--perhaps the key type, because thats the usual reason for treaties and political visits and the like. Relying on the technicalities of "substantial" and the like to argue for or against an article is in my opinion unconstructive, though it's a useful device by which the GNG can be twisted to mean whatever one pleases. Back in the days when people thought that it was a fixed fundamental principal rather than a rough guide, I got a good deal of practice at quibbling about it in either direction to support whichever position I held, but now I prefer to discuss whether or not something is actually notable or not.   DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Article has enjoyed considerable improvements by editor Richard Arthur Norton.  Far too much valuable info would be lost if we tried to cram details on all a nations minor relationships into a single page, rather than keeping it in dedicated artilces. The number of bilateral relationships is governed by  n!  /  ( (n-2)! x 2)   so if we have 200 recognised nations we'd have only a very reasonable 19,900  items, not 40,000 as has been claimed.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin this !vote was canvassed . LibStar (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From the same page:"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." Sound like something you've done lately? AniMate  21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are wikilawyering. I love that Wikioxymoron. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Two comments about Richard Arthur Norton's quote above: (1) This is the third time in this discussion he has quoted that passage. Saying it over and over again does not make it any more true. (2) "...if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". When messages are sent to numerous people with one opinion and not to people with a different opinion they do not appear intended to improve rather than to influence. What is more, that is so obvious that it is difficult to understand how Richard Arthur Norton can fail to see that fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Further comment - I think a problem with many of these articles is that they aren't really articles on the relationship itself, but more just a rundown of what the relations are. That is a key difference, and trying to glue together the latter to make it look like the former is exactly what WP:SYNTH is in place to prevent.  This article may as well be titled "List of Iceland-Mexico relations".  Things actually have to happen to make inter-nation relations notable, and reliable sources have to make note of that, otherwise it is just a list of agreements and treaties. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia warns this about synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Synthesis requires a new position, so if I say that the relations between Iceland and Mexico are "improving" or are "awesome" or are "getting worse" or are "not notable", I am synthesizing a new conclusion not present in the original material. None of the material used violates the Wikipedia concept of synthesis. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking simple agreements and declaring that as proof the relations are notable is synthesis to a T. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By Wikipedia rules they are notable. Saying in the article that the relationship is notable or not notable would be synthesis. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete Iceland's embassy for mexico is in... the United States. Mexico's embassy for Iceland is in... Denmark. No reliable sources independent of the subject discuss this relationship in any non-trivial depth. While the fact that weather in both countries is effected by the Gulf Stream is true, that says nothing about bilateral relations.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable topic with plenty of WP:RS.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly the article needs expanding, but it seems that reliable sources discuss Icelandic-Mexican relations in detail, making them notable. Pantherskin (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as not any more notable than any two arbitrarily chosen countries, and less notable than many. Precedent is clear that WP editors do not accept assertions of bilateral notability on the basis of common treaties. Collect (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We have seen the embassy canard before. It has no known precedence in Wikipedia. If you know of a rule that says something about it please quote it. The US doesn't have an embassy in Iran or Cuba. It shouldn't be used as a marker for notability since the US relationship with Iran and Cuba are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Disclosure note: I've notified the participants of the first AFD who had not yet commented here . – xeno talk 17:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is actually a good article, regardless of whether it is notable or not. It has a couple of pictures (including the infobox), is well referenced, and the material is divided in sections. There is no good reason to delete such a decent article.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 17:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I could make a pretty article about a totally non-notable subject such as my cat for instance, complete with a photo and an infobox, and divided into sections- but that doesn't make it suitable for inclusion. Reyk  YO!  22:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your fallacious argument is called reduction to absurdity and has no usefulness. Please use arguments based on notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - as several readers have pointed out, the topic itself has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as mandated by WP:GNG. Yes, the two have relations (not in itself notable, as established by numerous discussions), and yes, the two have interacted at a basic level (which is normal for most any random pair of countries in the world today, and which gets reported on all the time but passes unnoticed by this encyclopedia, except in this series of nonsense articles). That said, there is no source actually covering "Iceland–Mexico relations" in any depth; there are only brief news items about routine interactions that Wikipedians have surmised are equivalent to "Iceland–Mexico relations". That, of course, is bogus; we need independent sources providing in-depth coverage; unsurprisingly, these are not to be found.
 * MarshalN20, WP:N is a pretty well-established guideline, not one you can simply wish away. And the presence of photographs or sections is not a reason to hold off from deletion.
 * Dream Focus, you may wish to review WP:BURDEN. This encyclopedia is based on sources that can actually be located, not on hypothetical sources in Icelandic and Spanish that may or may not exist.
 * MichaelQSchmidt, conspicuously absent in your explication of the "sources" is one that actually addresses this relationship, not aspects thereof you may find notable. - Biruitorul Talk 18:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again the magic word "relationship" does not have to appear in any reference, any synonym will do. The article on 2003 invasion of Iraq has sources on the "insurgency" and "civil war". "Invasion of Iraq" does not have to appear, any accurate synonym will do. How do we know what a synonym for relationship is? Just look at what the US State Department uses as their website for US relationships, and what the headings are: import and exports, meetings, consulates, cultural exchanges, health and NGOs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a baseless argument, because we know what valid sources on actual relationships look like: like this, or this, or this, or this. The point is that there should be some source(s) that provide some sort of an overview of the topic, should it exist. None do in this case, which is telling. - Biruitorul Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Like many of these, there is nothing here beyond the normal pedestrian functions of government. There is nothing notable about this relationship. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Meets the standards of WP:N IMHO, contains 14 WP:RSs and the topic in-of itself is notable. The foreign relations of any two nations that are internationaly recognized, wether it be Mexico and Iceland or Peru and Sri Lanka are naotable based on the diplomatic status of the two nations and the relationship (or lack there-off) between them.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 23:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Referenced historical material.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, verifiability is not tantamount to notability. Plenty of trivial details published in newspapers around the world every day pass entirely unnoticed by this encyclopedia. Just because there isn't anything substantial to say about this relationship (and there isn't, else sources describing it would have surfaced) doesn't imply we should prioritize the trivia found about it and pollute the encyclopedia with it. - Biruitorul Talk 04:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * International relations is undoubtedly a notable subject that should be covered comprehensively by Wikipedia. An important question is how to organise it.  Deleting bits of it in the name of WP:N, which exists to stem mostly promotional stuff, does not help in answering the question, damages the concept of comprehensibility, and is bad for Wikipedia.  Blind application of WP:N is bad.  This sort of material is what we want in the encyclopedia, and whether it is to be stand-alone, or in a larger article on trivial relations, "Delete" is the wrong way to go.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, not every facet of international relations need be noticed by this encyclopedia, and the norm for relationships that are actually notable is not to do so. To give one example, Israel and Syria interact in fairly important ways every week of every year. That does not mean that, when Israel–Syria relations gets expanded to a decent length, every twist and turn need be recorded there. A competent editor will use books like this one to chronicle the important happenings, but will not include every one of thousands of available press clippings on more mundane aspects of the relationship.
 * Now, if we don't give priority to that sort of trivia in articles on actually notable relationships (and let's drop the pretense for a moment, because no expert actually believes "Iceland–Mexico relations" is a notable topic), why do it here, other than as an exercise in "watch me do this"? - Biruitorul Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Biruitorul, I don’t agree with your approach. We should have something on every international relationship.  For some relationships, the material will be much more dramatic than for others.  So be it.  You seem to want to have an independent measure, such that dramatic relationships are covered in detail in proportion to the drama above a certain threshold.  Accodingly, this would see Mexico-Iceland afforded no content.  This is a rigid, linear scaling method that is almost never properly used anywhere.  Better to minimally include the top half dozen most interesting things in the relationship.  As a reader, that is what I expect to find in any resource.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My criterion isn't drama, it's significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That threshold isn't met here. - Biruitorul Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see an abundance of significant coverage in reliable sources. As a spinout of the obviously notable articles International relations, Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Mexico, sources independent of the subject are not necessary.  Are you expecting all sources to not be published in Mexico, Iceland, or by authors or publishers with interest in either Mexico or Iceland?  That's just silly.   There are not WP:COI issues involved, for which the independent source clause exists.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability and "not a directory or random collection of information" (like the relationship between Fish and Bicycles, which has more refs than the relations of these two countries, per Google Book Search ). Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated. Neither country even has an ambassador in the other country. The canvassing means that a "Keep" result is highly suspect. Edison (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So it is notable enough to be in Foreign relations of Iceland. Then the question should be is there enough text for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The US doesn't have an embassy or ambassador in Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba. In the end it comes down to: Are the sources reliable, and is there enough for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The US is in a state of active hostility with at least Iran, North Korea, and Cuba, and deliberately withholds diplomatic relations. Bhutan is an isolated country which has "had relations with" few other countries. "I did not have relations with that country." This is a red herring and irrelevant to the present discussion. There are not enough good sources for a standalone article, and the information is better presented within "Foreign relations of..." articles for each sovereign relation rather than forming all binary pairs. Edison (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why there is no point using it as an argument for deletion. Stick to notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While on the topic of red herrings, no one is arguing for "forming all binary pairs". We are discussing Iceland–Mexico relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Well written and sourced article. I have no relationship to Iceland or Mexico.  I recommended keep during the last AfD too. Robert Brockway (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think just about any bilateral relations between any two sovereign nations is notable. This case is no different. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may think that, but consensus reached at numerous AfDs is that that is not the case - one needs sources referring to an actual relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 04:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think that since the consensus in the previous afd for this article was to keep it, and you haven't provided any diffs to prove your case. Even if it did, consensus can change over time. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, the point is that your argument is bogus; see Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Paraguay relations (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Greece-Guyana relations, Articles for deletion/Niger–Pakistan relations, etc. - Biruitorul Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How does this article, Iceland–Mexico relations, compare to Libstar's: Canada - Iceland relations. Iceland–Mexico is better sourced, it doesn't contain sentences that were cut and paste complete with misplaced capitals and the non-standard spelling of mollusks. How is that article Libstar's standard for bilateral relations and this one he has put up for AFD? He is using the same types of sources in that article that he is condemning in this article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, learn to indent properly. I created Canada - Iceland relations a few days ago so you deliberately select a very early stub for comparison. This AfD does not exist for debating its notablity or suitability. it's a strategy that you're using when you have nothing more to argue. if you are questioning its notability because it does not meet your extremely high bar for notability, please nominate for deletion. however, I can confidentially say Canada - Iceland relations will easily have much more indepth coverage than Mexico-Ireland. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith, but maybe if you spent more time on the article you started and less here, your article would be improved and not have material cut and pasted directly from websites. If you do cut and paste, at least add in quotations, or at least change the sentence case to the Wikipedia style or change the wording slightly. All the changes I made to this article were made in a single day. And remember what you say (I am paraphrasing), don't make claims that the article will meet Wikipedia standards, just do the work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Four sources? even discounting the other ten, keep. Thanks to User:VernoWhitney for advertizing this debate on ANI. What a frivolous nomination it was. East of Borschov (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder when number of sources became the criteria for notability. We deleted probably hundreds of bios for BLP1E that probably have more than 10 reliable sources. Source and notability are not interchangeable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct! Even two reliable, independent source providing significant coverage will suffice. East of Borschov (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC) As to your question when, it appears that the core of WP:N stabilized at some time in the middle of 2007. But I haven't checked the history of higher-level rules. East of Borschov (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, we have the AfD's so that sort of thinking can't just run rampant unchallenged. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you care to address the arguments that aren't based on notability? Namely, that there is no rationale for why this material can't be covered in the existing articles "Foreign relations of Mexico" and "Foreign relations of Iceland"? - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral Whilst not wanting to comment on this particular article, because it is a little hard to ascertain whether it is notable or not, having non-resident ambassadors does not tell one whether the relationship is notable or not. Monaco–Russia relations is an example of such a relationship. I will also note that File:Iceland-Mexico 2008.png likely fails the WP:NFCC. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Monaco is so tiny it (population 33,000 less than 2km squared) it is hard to justify an embassy there. I think only France and Italy have embassies. Most countries would get their ambassador in Paris to look after Monaco. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are details in many bilateral relationships that are better off in dedicated sub-articles, since WP has suggested maximum article sizes. And the WP system has enough room to accommodate the details. This article is extremely well-referenced without being wordy - every sentence ref'd and I don't see a single sentence that should be eliminated. We can reasonably presume that some or many of the other I/M bilateral relationships articles could be expanded to include the level of detail present here. Including this level of detail would make the Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland articles unwieldy. Novickas (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * so not the wordy quotation in accountant speak from Pricewaterhousecoopers? LibStar (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your previous complaint was that there was no in-depth interpretative material on the relationship, just isolated facts. Now you appear to be taking the opposite approach. When an interpretive source is added it becomes: "[a] wordy quotation in accountant speak". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * indepth coverage does not mean indepth quotations. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of reliable sources allowing for an well-referenced, informative article. The arguments supplied by the nominating editor and others are entirely unconvincing and border on IDONTLIKEIT. No amount of heckling is likely to change my opinion so I would suggest to the nominating editor that he or she needn't bother. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I will challenge the premise of this comment, because after all it's the closing administrator we need to persuade. Yes, the article does have "sources" and references". But validating what, exactly? That a routine head-of-state visit once took place, the type we never normally bother to record in this encyclopedia? Or that Iceland has some puny business venture in Mexico? How about sources that actually discuss, you know, "Iceland–Mexico relations" in their totality? - Biruitorul Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with Mattinbgn's opinion.--Milowent (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Milowent, you generally have something worth saying on AfDs - would you care to comment on my argument above that (a) despite being notable, the material can more appropriately be dealt with in the existing articles Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland, and, in the alternative, (b) that the sources demonstrate notability accruing to the foreign relations of the individual countries, not necessarily accruing to this particular relationship? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would we want to duplicate a large article by cutting and pasting the information into two articles that are even larger? Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland are already large and unwieldy, and why would we want the same information duplicated in the two articles? What good would come from taking the article Rat Pack and duplicating the text in 4 biographies? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the content remains, I don't feel strongly either way about merger in this case--I see that, for example, that Foreign relations of Mexico is a long article, maybe it could be included, maybe not. I see these "Foreign relations of x-y" articles come up in AfD, and I haven't commented very often because I am not well-versed in how these AfDs actually decide which articles get kept and which deleted.  In very weak cases of two small un-connected countries where the article has no substantive content or sources, deletion seems appropriate.  In cases of two large countries, e.g., Sino-Indian relations, the preference for a separate article is clear.  In between we have a huge spectrum.  This one seemed sourced enough to be kept.  I understand the construct of the distinction you are suggesting to govern the outcome, but I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to say if I agree with you or not.--Milowent (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I'm testing the argument, too, as it seems to be solid and policy supported, and I'm rather disappointed no one's directly rebutted it yet. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

" WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's all said above. Yikes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP! -- Pineapple Fez 07:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject approached academically and with reliable sources which in theory is what an encyclopedia does. Comfort shoe (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Comfort shoe is a blocked sock puppet. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:GAL — Get A Life instead of challenging well-done articles on esoteric topics. Wikipedia is not paper, the presence of this article in no way impinges upon the WP experience of any user. This is a waste of time challenging good material when crap is flooding through the in-basket even as we dither. Carrite (talk)
 * Esoteric is one thing, fictitious is quite another. Find some sources actually discussing "Iceland–Mexico relations" (sort of like how this source describes Brazil – United States relations), and I'll gladly vote to keep. - Biruitorul Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please quote directly the Wikipedia rule that demands this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, isn't it sort of logical that article topics will have been covered as such by outside sources? WP:GNG, maybe? - Biruitorul Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Drama about the need to get rid of ARS aside, my deletionist tendencies just cant support getting rid of well-fleshed out bilateral relations articles such as these. It is well referenced, undoubtedly encyclopedic, and (while not a criteria for keeping) quite useful for a political junkie such as myself. There's cruft, and then there's esoteric. This is the latter, not the former. -- M  ask?  19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Undoubtedly" encyclopedic? Has any political scientist, journalist, foreign affairs expert, or similar professional ever bothered to examine "Iceland–Mexico relations", under any name? If so, where? If not, why should we? - Biruitorul Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please quote directly the Wikipedia rule that demands this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:GNG demands "significant coverage" for "a topic", while WP:SOURCES speaks of how "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications", the underlying assumption being that at least one source will deal with a topic as a whole. - Biruitorul Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rules state: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This meets that standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing 'encyclopedic' with 'previously compiled'. No worries, easy mistake to make. This is one of the joys of WP:NOTPAPER. The subject, while notable, is not in, say, Britannica, because of the esoteric nature of the topic. Encyclopedic in this context is shorthand for well defined in scope (the article is limited to Mexico-Iceland relations, a distinct subject that can be covered) supported by references (not making shit up to fill a page) and documenting (admittedly subjective) important knowledge. Cruft is something to fight against, and I've been doing it for years, but this is not that. -- M  ask?  23:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The key phrase here is "supported by references". I don't dispute the validity of the sources themselves. I do dispute that they amount to a notable relationship, since none of them actually talks about it in any depth. - Biruitorul Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, just to snag the low hanging fruit, you asked: Has any political scientist, journalist, foreign affairs expert, or similar professional ever bothered to examine "Iceland–Mexico relations", under any name? Now assuming you consider a Head-of-state and an Ambassador as foreign affairs expert, they did exactly that, by exactly that name: President Calderón and Ambassador Jónsson discussed Icelandic-Mexico relations, in particular ways to strengthen the bilateral trade between Iceland and Mexico. - M  ask?  23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I concede that the ambassador (a political scientist by training) discussed the relationship with the president (a lawyer and an economist), probably in such generalities as "relations are excellent" (what else could one expect between this particular pair?) and "let's boost trade". But this encyclopedia relies on published material that treats subjects in depth, not on brief records of discussions about a topic. Had the ambassador published an article about this topic in, say, the Journal of Latin American Studies, great. That didn't happen, though, and we're left without evidence of attention paid to the topic in published sources by experts in the field. - Biruitorul Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. From a procedural standpoint, it is shameless to the point of vandalism to nominate this article so soon again.  I know there was precedent, but it is still lousy.  From a substantive standpoint, this is another one of those unlikely but notable articles.  It is well-sourced, and well-written.  The nomination is, again, of the brown peoples are not notable variety.   Well, Mexico is a large country and its diplomatic relations are important. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It just so happens that this "topic" doesn't exist outside Wikipedia, meaning it's not only unlikely, but also fictitious. Sure, Mexico – United States relations are notable, but can you show coverage of this topic as such anywhere? Oh, and could we please avoid the not-so-subtle charges of xenophobia against Libstar? That does nothing to improve the "keep" voters' argument, which, as far I can tell, says we should prioritize any and every variety of trivia, provided it's presented in a pretty format. - Biruitorul Talk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please quote directly the Wikipedia rule that demands this. Your argument assumes that every notable person already has a biography written about them. There is no Wikipedia rule that says that Wikipedia editors cannot write a biography based on the same secondary sources as someone writing a biography. Is someone not notable because there is no published biography, or has no one gotten around to writing one yet? I don't think we can assume every biography of someone dead is already written, it is just silly. Having a published biography almost guarantees notability, but the absence doesn't mean anything. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's a straw-man argument. Of course notable individuals are profiled in obituaries, newspaper and magazine articles, etc. Of course there may be notable relationships covered by journal, newspaper and magazine articles. The fact remains that this particular one has not, other than in passing mentions we'd never normally notice outside this series of nonsense articles, been addressed in any sort of depth by published sources, peer-reviewed or otherwise. - Biruitorul Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again it is a standard refutation of your logic and not the strawman fallacy. The absence of a published book or long article dedicated to a topic does not mean the topic is not notable. I know of no such rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An Icelandic-Mexican relationship exists outside WP - and has since 1964 - most recently in the form of binding bilateral agreements on agriculture, taxation, and energy along with oral commitments to support each other's agendas in the UN. These are admittedly mostly supported by primary sources right now, but that is not a reason to delete, government sources will do to establish notability. If it's lacking in secondary sources, I would say that's probably due to a lack of EN WP editors fluent enough in either Spanish or Icelandic to find the secondary sources. Novickas (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:PSTS; primary sources can't be used to validate the notability of a topic, and need to be discussed by published secondary sources. The government sources merely tell us relations exist, which is not inherently notable (per previous discussions and WP:NOTDIR). And two things about your final point. First, WP:BURDEN requires sources to actually be at hand, and does not permit unprovable speculation about what might exist out there. Second, if we can for a moment drop the pretense that this pairing is anything but laughable, we'd acknowledge that Iceland's notable relationships are probably limited to US, UK, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and maybe a handful of others, while Mexico's are largely limited to US, Canada, UK, France, plus a slew of countries in Central and South America. Not "Iceland–Mexico". - Biruitorul Talk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources determine notability not what makes Biruitorul laugh. It is much easier to determine too, since Biruitorul will not always be available to perform his laugh test. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only two primary sources used are the images and the text of a speech. Both were used for verifiability and not notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad, there are several secondary sources in the article. Novickas (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you were confusing primary sources with third party sources. It is a common mistake, no problem. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The information uncovered by User:MichaelQSchmidt is more than what can be crammed in the usual tables of each country's foreign relationships. Pcap ping  23:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Still an ad hoc collection of incidents and events between the two countries without any study of relations as a whole or assertion of a notable relationship in world events compared to any other random two countries. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  02:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * CLOSE AS NO CONSENSUS - My Delete vote above notwithstanding, it should be abundantly clear to everyone at this point that there's no community consensus at this stage to delete this article. Let's get the AfD closed so we can all put our energy to more productive things. - DustFormsWords (talk)
 * Keep Looks like a decent survey of rather minimal relations between the two countries. Since somebody has gone to the effort to put it together, let's leave it. It does no harm, and it is a verifiable and rather decently written article on a serious subject. This is not the sort of irrelevant or frivolous material notability guidelines were created to exclude. Ray  Talk 03:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 04:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  10:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  10:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep International relations are notable and this has an abundance of information and reliable sources. I can't understand how this is not encyclopedic. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep: Thoroughly sourced, passes WP:GNG with flying colours, and excellently informative article, it should be improved if possible, not deleted. This kind of relatively obscure but well documented articles are what makes WP more useful and informative than any "normal" encyclopedia. I am sorry that the canvassing incident smeared some of the keep !votes, since they for sure have more merit than the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments of the delete ones. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, saying "strongest possible keep" doesn't make your vote count twice as much. And it then makes you look silly if you're every asked to vote in an AfD on science, Earth or homo sapiens, because you've already spent your strongest keep on Iceland-Mexico relations.  :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * excellent point DustFormsWords, I would save "strongest possible keep" for my own city since I know it definitely exists. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can use my maximum keep intensity on many different articles. I have a very high keep-ability! (for the record: I know perfectly well it doesn't make it count more, it's just a way to say what I feel about). -- Cycl o pia  talk  13:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to whoever closes this thing: Obviously this is going to be closed as "no consensus". However, it would be awesome (though certainly not required) if you could provide some analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments proffered here, rather than just stating there was no consensus and moving on. Thanks. Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"> C  01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. There's obviously going to have to be community discussion about these kind of articles generally and a neutral summary of what's gone on here would be of assistance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, its already clear that there are bilateral relation articles that are clearly notable, articles which are clearly not notable, and a huge swath in-between where editors argue about the quality of sources, whether those sources are "significant coverage", etc., and opposing factions exist about that. I'm not sure this one AfD viewed in a vaccuum provides much guidance.--Milowent (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (My discussion with Yilloslime at Articles for deletion/Democratic Republic of the Congo – Norway relations gets a bit more into how editors look at these bilateral relations AfDs.--Milowent (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC))


 * Keep - There are plenty of sources specifically about this topic, more so than many other topics on Wikipedia. Easily passes WP:NOTE and its WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - Close however you like. Those telling you how to close have already voted. --Oakshade (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2010 (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.