Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark–Mexico relations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Mexico relations

[edit]
Denmark–Mexico relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

whilst noting the 2 countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of bilateral relations, only in a multilateral and of course football context. [1]. Danish foreign ministry site only really talks about swine flu. There's this article but hardly forms a notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your are doing the strawman fallacy again, pointing to one article in Google and declaring the topic not-notable. I ran the same search and found enough information for an expanded article. I have to question your skills in research if all you found was an article on Lego. A serious researcher doesn't look at the first 10 of the 13,300 results of a search and declare defeat. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your tone. you seem to enjoy doing this to anyone who supports deletion in an AfD. I did find other things but seemed trivial here. My opinion will be considered with all other opinions here. We are here to discuss if people think there is enough coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My job isn't to flatter you, it is to improve Wikipedia. If all you found was the article on Lego, and I was able to find 10 references on state visits, trade statistics, and treaties, then there are two choices: You are skilled at Google but resorting to the strawman fallacy, or your skills with Google need improving because you only looked at the first page of over 10K hits. I have the same tools as you, a computer and access to Google. Cheers.
Yes. Most importantly, in case you haven't noticed, a number of these international relations articles nominated for deletion by Libstar were insufficiently researched and turned out to be worthy of inclusion. (Austria–Georgia relations, Russia–Seychelles relations, Iceland–Latvia relations, Angola–Bulgaria relations) In addition, LibStar has refused to notify the creators and significant contributors of these articles that they are being considered for deletion in accordance with with Wikipedia's policy on civility as explained at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion, even after being reminded of the issue.[2] The short shrift that has been given to researching these articles thoroughly before nomination for deletion should be enough, but I will also point out that there are many editors who believe that these articles qualify as being inherently notable (something akin to populated places).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
good stuff, cdog simmons, the majority of bilateral articles I nominated have been deleted. care to list those? there's at least 150 of these deleted in the past 2 months, not just nominated by me. you're using the strawman fallcy. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen 150. If you want to list them I would be interested in seeing them. But I will say that pointing out that the four above that I have been involved with in the past couple of weeks show that all these articles should not be nuked by Admin action. Would that really be what you would want anyway LibStar? I've found that you have contributed significantly to several of these articles bringing them to the level where their benefits are quite obvious.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of these were created by an eventually blocked troll. Some x-y are of course notable. What really needs to change is wikipedia's minimum standards for what constitutes a stub (at least 2 reliable sources should be the min for new article creation, but that unfortunately isn't going to happen.) At least you know now how we got here.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One man's "blocked troll" is another man's "martyr to his cause". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am seeing a sufficient relationship that is notable and verifiable. You can't just look at the stub and declare the topic not notable. You have to perform some due diligence and search in Google. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per excellent additions by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Visits by the heads of state. Fairly significant trade relations. Well cited. Notable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In particular, commercial relations alone would justify an article like this. it is only to be expected, since all significant countries have significant commercial relations. Probably about half the deleted articles should be reviewed on this basis. It's time we made BEFORE required, which would lead to the improvement of improvable articles. DGG (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lists 12 unrelated facts (but Wikipedia is not a directory). All arguments to keep this article apply doubly to this example (but the example shows that two notable items and a relationship does not necessarily warrant an article). There are 5 million people in Denmark, and 100 million in Mexico, and there are 200 countries. It is therefore inevitable that there will be all sorts of relationships between Denmark and Mexico, including tourism, trade and political visits. It is inevitable but it ain't notable (not until an analysis from a reliable source indicates some notability). Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIR prohibits "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." This is neither quotations or aphorisms. The article is in prose, and is not a list at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By your definition, what would make information notable? The Wikipedia rule is that when the info appears in a reliable source, it is notable. Which of the sources do you think are not reliable? If you go to any almanac the headings for each country are trade, diplomacy, and even sports. How did you come up with "unrelated"? The last time I looked at a directory, a phone book, it was a list of names and numbers in alphabetical order. This doesn't look like a directory at all, it is written in prose, not a table. It looks like a standard almanac entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 04:22, June 4, 2009
Facts in reliable sources are verified. To be notable, something extra is needed. Since there is no specific guideline for assessing country relations, we have to rely on WP:GNG. For example, we don't need common sense (aka WP:OR) to tell us that relations between Greece and Turkey are notable because there are plenty of reliable sources that discuss interactions between those two countries – having a secondary source with an analysis of relations between X and Y is evidence that the relations are notable.
Consider countries X and Y: Facts on the relations between X and Y might include the existence of recognition/transport/agreements/visits/trade and more. But such relations apply between the vast majority of countries. They are only notable if WP:GNG is satisfied. If no independent sources have bothered to discuss the relations we should not conclude the relations are notable.
The article we are discussing is a list of facts that mention "Denmark" and "Mexico". There is nothing more because there is nothing notable to say about the relations. Take a look at Cuba – Soviet Union relations for an example of an encyclopedic article (and it could say more, for example, re Cuba's intervention in Angola). Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing subjective importance with the Wikipedia definition of notable and verifiable. It is notable when the media takes notice of it and publishes the account, Wikipedia requires at least two independent sources to be published to be considered notable. What is important to any individual Wikipedian doesn't matter, it is a reference work for all users, not just you and me. I am sure if we were to rank all bilateral articles by their press coverage, Cuba – Soviet Union relations would be in the top third and Denmark–Mexico relations would be in the bottom third, but it is still notable by Wikipedia standards even if not important to you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia defines foreign relations as "the study of foreign affairs and global issues among states within the international system, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs)." This cleary is about relations, even if that specific word does not appear. Any synonym can be used. The article on the War in Iraq contains information discussing the "conflict" the "diaspora" the "sectarian violence" and the "humanitarian crisis", we all recognize that they are discussing the same concept, and no original research is required to connect the dots. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has done a nice job sourcing some facts about the trade between these countries and documenting some state visits, but I'm still not seeing any sources that could reasonably be considered to constitute "significant coverage" of Mexico-Denmark relations. A passing mention that Lego is investing in Mexico doesn't cut it for me. The coverage of the queen's Mexican visit almost does, but there's nothing actually on the countries' relations--it's all about the how the queen went here and Calderon said this... For what's its worth here's an example of news article that I do think constitutes significant, coverage, though its on Switzerland-DPRK relations--I'm just throwing it out as an example. Note that it's non-exclusive but still sufficient, in my mind. One more such source and I'd say Swiss-DPRK relations are notable. (And no I haven't bothered to look). Yilloslime TC 07:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'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 trivial but may be less than exclusive" Can you point to the original research in the article? Every sentence is tied to a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there was any original research involved. Yilloslime TC 01:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are implying that coverage "isn't significant". The Wikipedia litmus test for that is "original research is needed to extract the content" What original research is required to "extract the content"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:25, June 8, 2009
I'm not implying that the coverage isn't significant, I'm saying that the coverage isn't significant. Here's how WP:N defines "significant coverage": "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 trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]. All I'm saying is that the sources do not "address the subject directly in detail," and amount to only "trivial" coverage. Yilloslime TC 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no concept of trivia. It is a subjective concept. For me all sports statistics are trivia. "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 trivial but may be less than exclusive. I would say with more than 10 references the topic has been covered in detail, and I do not see any original research. It meets both tests. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be getting hung up on the word "relations". See international relations for the breadth of topic covered. The word itself doesn't need to appear in a media report, it is the concept. A state visit, trade, treaties, international crime, kidnapping of citizens are relations, even if we use one of the previous synonyms. The topics covered by the US state department on their website gives you a good idea of the topics involved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Denmark and Mexico have had bilateral treaties between them for at least 178 years. I've added the sources (independent and reliable).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a red herring argument. The lack of interpretation of the treaty in a book or journal only means that there isn't sufficient information for a standalone article on the treaty itself. Every article in the bilateral series contains information on treaties, that is the definition of international relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you are now asking that the sources need not only be for the topic, but for the exact same way the topic is being presented? There are someways in which Wikipedia presentation of topics is unique--shall we give up NPOV, for example, because we are better at it than almost any print source? If people in Denmark are concerned about their relations to Mexico from their POV , and people in Mexico with their relations to Denmark from theirs, then people are concerned with their relationship between each other, and we collect the two. . They may not have put them together in an encyclopedia, but we do. An encyclopedia is, among other things, a place to gather and collect and organize information. There are many ways to organize it, and if we have people to do it, we should follow as many as possible. The real fault of the making of these articles is that they were made faster than people could properly improve them. If, indeed, nobody had been willing to, there might be a case for rejection. But if enough people are, it builds the encyclopedia. For every person who places an argument at one of these, an opportunity to improve the encyclopedia otherwise has been passed up. DGG (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, what you are proposing is specifically forbidden by WP:OR especially WP:SYNTHESIS. "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." If you search for information about Canada/US relations, there are books and articles about it. If you search for information about Denmark/Mexico relations, there is information on Mexican restaurants in Copenhagen. The topic itself has to be notable. Just because bricks are notable doesn't mean that a particular building is. Drawn Some (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your theory that no relationship exists between the two countries, and that by creating the article we are synthesizing a relationship where none exists? Then why do reliable sources continue to write about the events, and why are there state visits, and why is there trade between the two countries. Why do Danish companies invest in Mexico and why did President Felipe Calderón "[hail] the fact that Denmark is Mexico's largest investor among the Nordic countries." It is a stretch to call the relationship synthesized by a Wikipedian, and silly to write that no such relationship actually exists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not my contention that no relations exist between Denmark and Mexico. However, the topic of Denmark-Mexico relations does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which are consensus. Just because hands and feet and livers and necks exist and are verifiable doesn't mean we can create an article about the body that we might imagine that they constitute if the entire corpse itself isn't notable. Drawn Some (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia isn't defined by Wikipedia, it is a subjective concept. Things that aren't of interest to you or to me are trivia. All the sources used are reliable sources. The topics covered are the same as those discussed in international relations and in the articles created and edited by LibStar. No Wikipedia rule says that the word "relations" has to appear in the source article, the article is about the concept, not the word. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent reliable sources that provide significant in-depth coverage of Mexico/Denmark relations have been shown to exist. That something exists is not sufficient for it to have an article in Wikipedia, it must be notable. The few verifiable factoids that have been dredged up should be included in articles on topics that are notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of factoid isn't a Wikipedia concept. It is a subjective designation to denigrate what you personally don't have an interest it. All Wikipedia cares is if the information came from a reliable source to be verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what you seem to believe, we have a higher standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia than mere verifiability, we require notability. You really should think about starting Verifipedia where anything verifiable is included whether or not it is notable. The consensus here at Wikipedia is that topics of articles must be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the reduction to absurdity and the strawman fallacy combined. Please try and avoid logical fallacies and stick to Wikipedia policy. I never said every fact belongs in Wikipedia. Quotes and aphorisms, and lists of non notable names don't belong here. The Wikipedia notability requirement is met with excess. "'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 trivial but may be less than exclusive" Can you point to the original research in the article? Every sentence is tied to a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a bunch of factoids and synthesizing an article doesn't make the topic of the article notable. Please show significant in-depth coverage of Mexico and Denmark relations. Stuff like this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf or even an oped like this: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dresser11mar11,0,1937443.story Not silly factoids. Drawn Some (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are demonstrating "relative importance" not the definition of Wikipedia notability. If we were to rank all the country relations by the amount of press coverage, Mexico-US would rank in the top third and Denmark–Mexico relations in the bottom third, yet it still meets the Wikipedia requirement of notability and verifiability. The Wikipedia litmus test for notability requires "no original research is needed to extract the content". What original research are you referring to? Is it original research to claim that a relationship exists between the two countries? Is the trade imaginary? The Danish companies non existent, the treaties a lie? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Denmark-Mexico relations are relatively unimportant. Because they are unimportant they do not have significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Because they lack that coverage, they are not notable. Because they are not notable, they don't get an article in Wikipedia. I think you finally understand. Drawn Some (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'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 trivial but may be less than exclusive" Can you point to the original research in the article? Every sentence is tied to a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please examine the sentence you have now quoted twice on this page: "'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 trivial but may be less than exclusive". You have steadfastly ignored the clause I have bolded. You have instead focused your attention on the part that I've put in italics, but notice that the two clauses are joined by the word "and". The argument that I and I think Drawn Some are trying to make is that the standard defined in the bolded clause is not met. I have never contended that OR was needed to interpret the sources in the article, and don't think anyone else has suggested that either. Trying to turn the discussion to WP:OR is a strawman argument. Yilloslime TC 01:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958-, those individual factoids are verifiable but please read WP:SYNTHESIS. Seriously, go read it. It's part of WP:OR. Re-read this entire discussion and try to understand what we are trying to get through to you. If you truly don't understand at this point, I'm afraid I can't explain it to you in any simpler way and you may just not be able to understand this. Alternatively, someone else may have a different way to explain it that you may be able to understand. Either way, don't be too hard on yourself about it. There are some complicated ideas that I don't understand, either, and I accept that everyone can't understand everything and don't beat myself up over it. Drawn Some (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have it says: "Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. ' and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Can you please point out the original research in the article text, and tell me the conclusion that was reached. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Country A trades $xxxx annually with Country B. Country A and Country B have a tax treaty. An explorer from the region where Country A is now located made first European contact with the natives of the island where Country B is now located. Therefore Country A and Country B have notable bilateral relations. Drawn Some (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are arguing "relative importance". I agree that if we were to rank all the world's bilateral relations Denmark–Mexico would be in the lower third, and Iraq-US would be in the top third by press coverage. But the article meets the definition of Wikipedia notability, in that reliable sources have covered the events and statistics listed to the point that "no original research is needed".
"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." I sent a neutrally worded message to a nonpartisan. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we're here to assess this bilateral relations on its own merits. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supaman89, since Richard Arthur Norton (1958- specifically asked you to look for Spanish language sources on Denmark-Mexico relations and to comment here, we can take your comment to mean that you, too, were unable to find any? Drawn Some (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the question here is not if a relationship exists but a notable relationship exists. you say "they won't increase in the future", that's WP:NOTCRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are over 10 references in the article. And prophylacticly if you are going to call them trivia per the new talking points, Wikipedia doesn't recognize the concept of trivia. It is a subjective concept that differs from person to person. For me all sports statistics are trivia, yet every team article contains them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such concept as quasi-canvassing. A neutrally worded message was left asking to help find references, since he had contributed to articles on diplomacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there is such a thing as WP:Votestacking, and the above user have always voted !keep in the previous AfDs s/he's participated in. And as far as I can tell, his/her only contributions to articles on diplomacy are vandalism fighting and some minor link fixing.This comment is enlightening. Yilloslime TC 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And he should consider starting Viagrapedia for articles with staying power that lasts for years and years because that's not the criteria we use at Wikipedia. We require articles to meet our standards of notability. Drawn Some (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

[edit]
There are plenty of references but none of them discuss the topic of the article. Drawn Some (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be getting hung up on the word "relations". See international relations for the breadth of topics covered. The word itself doesn't need to appear in a media report, it is the concept. A state visit, trade, treaties, international crime, kidnapping of citizens are relations. The topic as covered by the US state department on their website gives you a good idea of the types of information involved when describing the US relations with other countries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not hung up on the particular word "relations". But I am hung up on topics meeting our notability requirements. The sources can use any terminology or be in any language as long as they provide significant in-depth coverage of the topic of the relation between Denmark and Mexico and are independent. Here are some suggested alternative terms for the topic: [4]. Drawn Some (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am seeing part of the problem here. If there are a lot of in-depth references on football games between Denmark and Mexico, then that is a notable topic. If there is also in-depth coverage of trade between Mexico and Denmark, or even avocado or butter exports in particular, then that topic is notable. If extradition treaties between the two countries have been controversial and have been discussed in-depth, then that is a notable topic. But you can't say, well, all of these little topics are notable so Denmark-Mexico relations is a notable topic. We don't grant notability that way, it's a form of inheritance from the parts to the sum, maybe that is an explanation you can understand. Butter, flour, milk, raisins and baking powder are all notable but that doesn't mean raisin scones or raisin bread are automatically notable. Some of the things you can make from them are notable and some arent' and each has to be judged on its merits, not inherit notability from certain aspects or ingredients of the final product. Drawn Some (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspend AFDs, DRVs, and creations of X-Y relations articles. The discussions are driving people into entrenched positions from which few are willing to retreat at risk of losing face. The current situation of having discussions decided based on how many from each side show up, followed by automatic DRVs because of disagreeing with the closure (and that is what's happening) is poisoning any remaining relationships between each side, and putting at risk any chance of coming to an agreed position. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No real progress was made on getting rid of all these articles on non-notable topics. I was for some way of dealing with them as a group but the reality is some of them need to be kept and some need to be gotten rid of and somebody has to decide which ones fall into which category. The problem is that a few people believe anything verifiable belongs in the encylopedia regardless of notability so they try to insist that all 20,000 bilateral relations articles would be notable if any aspect of a relation between two countries is verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had and agreed position (more or less) regarding these articles and their (scant, individually un-notable) information being merged into other articles. Talk to User:Ikip about that. None of it precluded continuing to get rid of what was still poor articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:03, 9 June 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.
  1. ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Denmark–Mexico_relations&oldid=1142187482"