Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico–Tonga 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mexico–Tonga relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. There are no embassies, agreements, state visits. Trade is a mere $13000 a year. Many companies trade that much in an hour LibStar (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. All diplomatic relations between nations are valid and should not be compared to as a business. As such, when nations seek election for seat as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, countries seek each other's support as Mexico is doing now and received Tonga's support the last time it ran back in 2008. There's more than business involved. Bilateral agreements are just as important and both nations have discussed negotiating agreements. Aquintero82 (talk), 07:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I should also add a lack of third party sources cover this topic. The 2 you've stated above are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "both nations have discussed negotiating agreements" have they actually made any agreements? LibStar (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't think the minimal trade between both countries (just US$13K) is a good reason for deletion. These are two countries trading and I think diplomatic ties of this nature of notable for inclusion. I do agree we need better sources. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 16:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * if they were significant trading partners that would add to their notability. LibStar (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete There are about 19,000 possible bilateral relationships between countries, and they are not automatically notable. They don't even have embassies in each other, and merely talking to each other or attending conferences is not a significant relationship. There aren't independent sources about this besides information from the ambassador to New Zealand also accredited there. Reywas92Talk 19:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Reywas92 makes a good point. There is nothing notable about this particular relationship. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep . Added additional information to the article with regards to Mexican cartels using Tonga. Aquintero82 (talk), 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Added information is a random fact that Mexican cartels have used Tonga. None of the sources demonstrate how this "refers to the diplomatic relations between the United Mexican States and the Kingdom of Tonga." Reywas92Talk 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Tried to clean irrelevant/off-topic info from the article but was reverted.Yilloslime (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree not every national relationship is de facto notable, but the article's sourced well enough that we don't need to delete it. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Aquintero82. Notability != importance. In addition, to respond to this boilerplate nom in the spirit in which it was posted, I will once again note that this nom, like many others on AfD, is based on a fundamental misreading of WP:GNG, which states the conditions under which notability (i.e. appropriateness as an article topic) is presumed. To claim that a "failure" to meet the GNG means that non-notability is presumed is to flip the guideline on its head.  The GNG does not provide grounds for deletion. In particular, in this case, such an article makes sense (i.e. the topic is "notable") because it makes far more sense to assign encyclopedic information about Mexico-Tonga relations to a single article than to duplicate it in separate Mexico and Tonga articles. -- Visviva (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * simply copying and pasting the same argument without specific reference to the subject is boilerplate. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why you would expect other editors to put more effort into opposing the nom than you did in making it. -- Visviva (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have to say, that is a remarkably unique interpretation of the meaning of the GNG. If failure to meet the GNG is not a suitable route for presumption of non-notability, what on earth is? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * well said PMC. I'd be interested in Visviva's response. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd scarcely call it an interpretation, those are just the literal words of the guideline. In English, "if A then B" does not imply "if not A then not B". Pretty straightforward, and it's no coincidence that a biconditional wording has never gained consensus. (Of course, it would be a stretch to say that purely notability-based deletions have ever had consensus support outside of the dysfunctional and unrepresentative AfD community -- and this, again, is reflected in the actual words of WP:N, which purports to relate to the structuring rather than the scope of Wikipedia coverage -- but I'm straying from the topic here.) It seems to me that a valid reason for deletion would have to be based on the actual purpose of the Wikipedia project. Making real arguments takes real work, of course -- but fortunately, many common shorthand grounds for deletion are conveniently provided in WP:NOT. The kind of pseudo-legalistic reasoning that has come into vogue on AfD as a replacement for actual arguments is incredibly harmful to an open and collaborative project such as ours.  -- Visviva (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Added: of course, the great majority of invocations of the GNG in deletion discussions are harmless, because they merely stand as a shorthand for showing that the nom did their WP:BEFORE homework: "this article is unencyclopedic as it stands, and my research indicates that there are insufficient sources to support a standalone article on this topic." But when, as here, the nominated article is not facially unencyclopedic, that shorthand is no longer appropriate. -- Visviva (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, per Reywas92. Didn't we have some similar AfDs a few years back, whose general outcome was delete, except where reliable sources verified that the relationship was notable in some manner? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2020 (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.