Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madagascar–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. While the keep/delete votes are equal, the delete voters have the policy-based argument here. The nominator has challenged that this topic does not satisfy WP:GNG, and in 3 weeks still no one was able to come up with a single source that demonstrates the notability of the topic. Notability must be demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (not primary sources). Primary sources can be used for the purpose of supporting information in an article, but primary sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability. If it cannot be shown that a topic is notable after an exhaustive search for sources, then it must be deleted per WP policy.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 16:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Madagascar–Mexico relations

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the supplied sources are primary from the Mexican government. There isn't much to these relations, no agreements, no embassies, trade is very low at USD9 million. Only 1 foreign minister visit and that was to a UN conference to Mexico. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as mentioned on numerous occasions previously, all relations are valid. You mention only one ministerial visit (from Madagascar to Mexico) but fail to mention the visits from Mexico to Madagascar. I've also added another Malagasy Ministerial visit to Mexico. The fact that most supplied sources are governmental is not an issue, as most countries local papers do not always mention diplomatic relevant news unless it's a "highly important nation" such as the United States for example. But I fail understand your motives. You never try to improve an article, but rather would simply have an article expelled from Wikipedia than add and improve it. Again, I feel like this will not the last encounter we'll have in a similar situation in the future. Aquintero82 (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no inherent notability of bilateral articles. In fact 100s have been deleted. You haven't addressed how this meets WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Numerous references, makes me believe there are more to be found to help expand and grow this article.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 11 of the 12 sources are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is that a concern? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * see WP:PRIMARY, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." LibStar (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa,  and Mexico.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG as there are is paucity of reliable independent sources. Almost every citation is from the government of Mexico and thus non-independent. The UN source is used simply to support the statement that Madagascar attended COP 16 in Mexico, but this has nothing to do with Mex-Mad relations, and shouldn't really belong in this article. The other non-government of Mexico source (BBC) is used simply note that France introduced vanilla to Mexico, which is only glancingly related to Mex-Mad relations. Yilloslime (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * With enough time, I would agree. But with that many sources and the fact that this article feels forgotten, it seems like there is a possibility that independent sources do exist out there and it's at least worth a search for them before deletion occurs. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you searched for independent sources? What is the result of your search? WP:MUSTBESOURCES LibStar (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on this subject, so I am willing to assume someone more knowledgeable about Mexican diplomacy, Madagascar diplomacy, diplomacy in general or other related subjects would likely be able to find independent sources given enough time. If they can't, then the topic can't be salvaged, but I am curious what the harm is in letting someone out there step up and try to save this and other articles like it. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Many of us on Wikipedia tend to fall back on the notion that every country uses a "developed country" mentality on independent sources. For many countries in the world, particularly those not in Europe, Canada, United States or Australia (to name a few) primary sources, especially relating to governmental and international relations; come from government sources. It is difficult to find independent sources when relating to what many countries consider to be governmental matters.

Below is a extract regarding Identifying and using primary sources

''"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.''

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. "Primary" does not mean "bad"

The sources provided are accurate as per the information cited in the article. As I've stated in previous conversations before, diplomatic relations between nations evolve and more information will be made available. As it becomes more available, I will update the articles that I personally watch and they are relevant. Aquintero82 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment I don't think a consensus can be reached regarding this article at this time. If additional references can't be added in a few months, I may change my viewpoint, but I agree with Aquintero82's perspective that particular references should be judged primarily on their merit independent from other references from that source (unless that source has an established track record of being untrustworthy.) Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2022 (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.