Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico–Netherlands 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. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–Netherlands relations

whilst on face value not appearing to be random with resident embassies. there is a lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, of course lots of football relations. [1]. I note the first two items of this search are the tax treaties but not really a basis of notable relations. I tried to do a search with the term "trade" but again only multilateral stuff seems to come up. [2] LibStar (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above into one-country articles. Not notable singly. Collect (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is better handled at Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Netherlands, per the emerged consensus on handling these pages. JJL (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for utterly failing WP:N, with not a hint of secondary sources shown that might establish notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another random pairing of countries that doesn't show notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another one of the random ones - all data "collected" would be glaringly irrelevant in any other context but the botched "rescue" attempt (a self-feeding mechanism of nonsense), and the entire topic is unencyclopedic. In fact, the primary-source filler only goes to show was much, as is the case with many other such articles. Dahn (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect of expansion. No sources indicate these relations are notable. Fails notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have notified the creator of this page, User:Villa88, of this discussion per WP:CIVIL.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the independent sources added since nomination detailing the existence and importance of a bilateral tax treaty between the two countries. Relations exist, and the notability of those relations has been established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete price waterhouse tax deconlficting directorys aside (the major accounting firms keep index of all relevant tax rules, for all countires) there are no reliable, secondary, independent sources that discuss this posited relationship in any depth that i can find. There are certainly none in the article. GNG not satisfied.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)q[reply]
Delete unremarkable relationship, with no study of the topic as a whole to claim otherwise. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article has more text in the references in the actual article. does that say something on actual content? LibStar (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial, unnotable bilateralism. Eusebeus (talk) 18:26, 8 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.