Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico–Serbia 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–Serbia relations

no evidence of significant relationship. many of the relations predate the establishment of independent state of Serbia. only 1 minor agreement in force http://www.mfa.gov.rs/Policy/Bilaterala/Mexico/agreements_e.html LibStar (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find significant coverage either for the present-day Serbia or for Yugoslavia. Perhaps the one salient fact, Mexico's non-recognition of Kosovo, is documented at International recognition of Kosovo. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep - 2 x embassy, include also Mexico–Yugoslavia relations -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–Yugoslavia relations redirects to Mexico–Serbia relations. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After 6 months, it is still a pathetic stub with no references showing notability. How many books or journal article have been written on the topic of "Relations between Mexico and Serbia?" Seems like a mere directory listing, which violates WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some content to the article. Head of state meetings tend to be notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unpersuaded by all the primary sources and general puff that have been added to the article. Notability for a topic, in this case this relationship, needs to be established by multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This subject, this relationship does not get past that hurdle.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a different understanding of the topic. To me, "relations" means senior-level meetings, agreements, investments, trade etc. - connections and dealings between the two countries. "Relationship" is a more abstract concept, about general feelings and perceptions. As an example, USA-Cuba relations have been virtually non-existent for some time. The relationship has been profound for over a century. This Mexico/Yugoslavia article does not cover the relationship, only the specific relations. In this article, the head of state meetings are well supported by reliable independent sources. As one would expect, the meetings are discussed in books and presumably were well reported in the papers at the time: "Tito Visits Mexico". They are clearly notable. The descriptions of treaties and agreements unfortunately rely on primary government sources in this version. Presumably there is no reasonable doubt of their authenticity, but it might be better to find books or news articles that reported on them. It seems likely that these sources exist, but I have no easy way to find Mexican or Yugoslavian news reports from 20 or 30 years ago. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added the United Nations as source for the treaties. Not as good as news articles, maybe, but fairly convincing to me. Also a few other sources, still not great. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Keep - This article meets all the standards of a good Wikipedia article, referenced with multiple reliable sources and those who are not are referenced with secondary sources meet WP:PRIMARY. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I accept the premise that Serbia is the successor to Yugoslavia, and there's plenty enough material to establish notability, and it's an interesting read. Fences and windows (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.