Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico–Samoa 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. The two "keep" opinions do not address the reasons advanced for deletion, which is failure to meet WP:GNG.  Sandstein  08:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Mexico–Samoa relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article is mainly based on primary sources (Mexican government). There is very little to these relations, no embassies, trade is very small. The visit by the Samoan Prime Minister was for the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference and not for advancing bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Oceania,  and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I fail to understand why after 3 years (when you decided to nominate Mexico-Tonga relations) that this is now an issue and should be considered for nomination? Relations between nations change and develop and I've updated all articles relating to Mexico's foreign relations accordingly. This article should remain. It is relevant and should not be deleted. Aquintero82, (talk); 22 March 2022, 16:30 (UTC)
 * There is no set order or time when an article can be nominated for deletion after another related one. Being "relevant" is not the same as being notable. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep A significant topic. Charliestalnaker (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * how does it meet any of the notability guidelines? LibStar (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article lists 8 citations and there are more that exists. It is incorrect to say that the Mexican government citations are primary sources because this article is not Mexican government. Such incorrect assumption would be like saying that Boeing is a primary source for the Wikipedia article airplane when it is, in fact, a secondary source. Charliestalnaker (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral Notability is not inherent or inherited, and if there is nothing special about these relations, then there's no point to have an article (relations between many countries are routine and of little historical significance...). Reserving judgement since, well, I don't have the inclination to do a proper source search at this time of day. A more apt comparison of the Mexican government sources (for writing an article where the Mexican government is one of the two main actors) would be using Boeing sources for writing an article about, say, the Boeing 747. Maybe appropriate sources for statements of fact, but not good enough for notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete in the face of the continued lack of WP:SIGCOV despite two full weeks having been given in an attempt to find such coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Per Nom, who raises sound, policy-based arguments. Keep votes aren't based on policy or guidelines. Yilloslime (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is against policy to delete an article based on no embassies. There is an consulate staffed by an honorary consul. It is against policy to delete an article based on little trade. The claim in the initial AFD that the visit of the prime minister was for another reason is NOT supported by any citations. Charliestalnaker (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My policy argument is based on failing WP:GNG. Honorary consuls are really minor volunteer roles and definitely not as significant as a full embassy. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding Honorary Consuls being "really minor volunteer roles", this is definitely not true. Honorary consuls are sometimes involved in very time consuming work and pay for very significant expenses in running the counsulate. Once the Honorary Consul of Pakistan in Boston's hard work was brought to the attention of the President of Pakistan during a trip to the US. The consul was then promoted to Honorary Consul General as a result. Charliestalnaker (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * has this honorary consul to Samoa actually done anything that has been reported? LibStar (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Another policy to seriously consider is If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page (Deletion policy). Throughout the years, I edit the pages when relevant information comes in. As stated countless times, relations between nations evolve and grow and I will continue to improve each article that I closely watch. It would be helpful if you LibStar would assist in editing a page rather than proposing them for deletion because of the policy you choose to follow. Aquintero82 (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on notable articles, those that have questionable notability can be considered for deletion. You can't deter other editors from nominating articles. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 8 April 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.