Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Mexico relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium–Mexico relations

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

a lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations in 3 languages I searched. almost all coverage is multilateral or of course football. Spanish search, French search, English search. There's this visit earlier this year by the Crown Prince but that alone is not evidence of notable bilateral relations and the usual double tax treaty. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to assume good faith, but I think again you just look at the first and maybe second page of tens of thousands of results and declare defeat. I and others have added at least 10 references for what you have termed "trivia". You aren't really performing "due diligence", you are performing a single search instead of doing the much harder research of sifting through the results. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did I use the word trivia? simply constantly deriding those who oppose your viewpoint achieves little. whilst you have found sources for this one, there are others that I have searched similarly and nominated and been deleted. this is what AfD is for. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Factoids" are not a Wikipedia concept, it just means the information in the article isn't of interest to you personally. SYNTH says: "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. "A 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 point out the "new position" that has been advanced? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Arthur Norton (1958-, I addressed this particular question from you in another debate within the last 24 hours and you ignored my response. I am not willing to keep answering it for you over and over again if you're going to ignore the answer. You might well ask yourself why different people keep telling you the same thing over and over. If you disagree with consensus on guidelines, try to change the guidelines, but don't please don't willfully ignore the consensus in practice because you disagree with it in theory. It is starting to interfere with building the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I keep posting it because you keep bringing up the same invalid argument. People have a habit of invoking the names of Wikipedia guidelines without actually quoting the text from them. Can someone point out the "new position" that has been advanced in this article. This is an example of a "new position". 1. Trotsky visited Mexico. 2. The King of Belgium visited Mexico. New inaccurate position: The King of Belgium supports the liberation philosophy of Trotsky. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am inclined to agree with Dahn but I am intrigued by the large number of honorary consulates that Belgium has in Mexico. Empress Carlotta is a bit of a red herring because there weren't any relations between the two countries, it was more of a personal relationship she had with Mexico, not a country-to country relationship and I have never seen her tragic life discussed in terms of bilateral relations except in this article, really it is a France-Mexico issue anyway. I will hold off on a final opinion to see if anyone (such as Richard Arthur Norton (1958-) who claims to have sources addressing Belgium-Mexico relations is willing to share them with the rest of us or if we are just expected to take his word on it. Drawn Some (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honorary consulates are usually someone who is willing to have the title and they have very limited consular powers eg can't issue passports. They are usually expats who have real day jobs in their adopted country, and almost always they have no dedicated office, just a work or home address. This confirms the 6 honorary consulates. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that. I still find it intriguing in this case. I guess Mexico is a popular place for retirees because of the low cost of living, nice climate, and the proliferation of Spanish as a second language. Drawn Some (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the execution of Emperor Maximilian (Carlotta's spouse), Belgium did send a representative to try to appeal to Mexico for mercy, which is a direct relation between the countries. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no one is disputing that Belgium and Mexico have had interactions, we are just trying to decide if the relations between Mexico and Belgium are notable per our standards here at Wikipedia. There don't seem to be any independent reliable sources discussing the subject in a non-trivial manner in English, Spanish, or French. Perhaps they exist somewhere we haven't looked or in another language such as Dutch. If you find such references, please bring them here or add them to the article to help others reach the same conclusion that you have. Drawn Some (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - factoids mentioning Mexico and Belgium that one user happened to dig up are no substitute for actual coverage of "Belgium–Mexico relations", of which there is none. - Biruitorul Talk 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Factoids" are not a Wikipedia concept, it just means the information in the article isn't of interest to you personally. The article on International relations describes what constitutes the concept, even if the word "relation" doesn't appear in the referenced article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 10 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) 15:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment How many bilateral robostubs would that leave untouchable? Edison (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Question Is this proposal being discussed seriously somewhere? I'm inclined to support it, but only with certain provisions.... Yilloslime TC 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is seriously being discussed on at least two admins' talk pages. These frivolous and disruptive AfDs have to stop already and as such, I endorse Stifle's proposal. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help a brother out with a link or two? Yilloslime TC 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the talk pages for User:Stifle and User:DGG as there are multiple threads. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another random pairing of countries that doesn't establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand what's the obsession with deleting these kind of articles, are they harming Wikipedia in anyway? I think not, if anything they increase Wikipedia's "informability" about a wide range of topics; sure both countries don't really have a really strong relation but it exists. If we were to be really picky about it, then we should also delete "useless" articles such as these ones:

Burundi – United States relations
Djibouti – United States relations
Lesotho – United States relations
Sierra Leone – United States relations
Mali – United States relations
Gabon – United States relations
Bahrain – United States relations

And many others, but of course, since they are about the United States no one seems to complain about them... Supaman89 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Bahrain is the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet and the U.S. designated Bahrain a Major Non-NATO Ally in 2001; the relations between those two states are rather notable.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't be used for retaining this article. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, and please don't turn this back into a "systemic bias" issue. It's not, and you will find out that what these articles usually do is to prioritize and create special criteria for info on the third world. So, if anything, it's systemic bias backwards. The articles you mention are presumably case by case, but I for one have no problem with voting to delete those that, like this one, are trumped-up. Dahn (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak DeleteYes, filling Wikipedia with directory listings about non-notable things absolutely harms the project. The preceding is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that we can't delete a crappy article if other similar crappy articles are still around. The end result would be a descending spiral into crappiness. Supaman89 should feel free to nominate any of the named articles if he cannot find reliable sources which discuss the bilateral relations of the two countries. In the case of Belgium and Mexico, there are some interesting 19th century historical tidbits about a Belgian woman who was empress of Mexico, but that is covered in the article about her, and is not enough to sustain this article. Thre do not appear to be enough reliable and independent sources covering the bilateral relations as such, and they are not that closely tied by trade. Edison (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia defines a directory listing as follows: "[Wikipedia is not for] Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article." I don't see that type of information here, there is no street address and phone numbers for consulates. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Nobody, you realize that book is from 1910 AD, almost 100 years ago, correct? Drawn Some (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full book: [1] Drawn Some (talk)
Are you sure that is the same book? The title of the one I am mentioning is Banking in Belgium and Mexico, and not The Banking System in Mexico and date does not necessarily matter. If someone wrote a book on a subject, it is timeless. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite sure, the one you are referencing was a chapter from the book I gave you the link to published seperately. It is from the US gov't printing office.
A Nobody, the second one is someone's thesis. We really don't need this distraction. We are not discussing an article about the banking or currency exchange systems of Mexico and Belgium, we are discussing an article about Belgium-Mexico relations. We need in-depth coverage of the subject of the article to hold it notable, not coverage of miscellaneous related topics. Drawn Some (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anything we do not need the distraction of an AfD as we have sufficiently estalished a realistic potential for improvement. Thus, the AfD should be withdrawn so that these improvements can move forward in the normal fashion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no one has shown even a single independent source providing in-depth coverage on the subject of the article, Belgium-Mexico relations. Not one. You're on some wild goose chase for articles about the banking system in the early 1900s when the big controversy was whether currency should be backed with gold or silver or both and first class postage in the US was two cents an ounce. This article is about Belgium-Mexico relations. Drawn Some (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is nevertheless what the referenced information already in the article covers, i.e. treaties, interactions, etc. between Belgium and Mexico. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are you reading it? 3 centuries? Belgium didn't become an independant country until 1832. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can't see how that is 3 centuries, no matter how I juggle the number. Even if you are going to try the part about Belgian tradespeople in the 16th century, having some tradespeople who happen to be from an area go there isn't "relations". And calling Belgium a "major power" might be overstating it a bit. Mexico is in the G-20, but Belgium isn't. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The modern name of the country doesn't matter. Articles on China don't start when it was declared the People's Republic of China in 1947. Iran–Iraq relations goes back 3,000 years, and US-Britain start way before 1776, despite the modern names of the countries used in the titles. Again people are focusing on the exact wording in the title and not the concept. The article on the United States begins: "In 1507, German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the lands of the Western Hemisphere "America" after Italian explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:21, 10 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." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there seems to be plenty of evidence in Dutch-language sources that these relations are notable. For instance, 2004 saw the commemoration of 50 years of diplomatic relations between the two countries, a relation that seems to be growing (trade between the two increased by 56% between 1999 and 2002). The source linked gives a brief history of these ties (going back to 1825); celebrations included exchanges between libraries and art exhibitions. Vicente Fox and Guy Verhofstadt exchanged pleasantries, presumably over the phone. The Belgian embassy in Mexico has a fairly long history of these relations also: DID YOU KNOW THAT...in 1537, three Flemish beer brewers went to Mexico, and are now credited as founders of Mexican beer brewing? I could go on--there's more here. In Dutch. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will save everyone from responding and apply a canned response: "Ugh, more trivia and factoids. Do the sources specifically discuss Belgium–Mexico relations in detail? Otherwise it is just trade figures, state visits, and more non notable treaties." I hereby strike my cheeky comment. It wasn't meant to insult. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The existence of a book talking specifically about the subject, in any language, is absolute proof that a subject is notable, if the GNG means anything at all. We could of course argue that the GNG is totally irrelevant, and that no amount of substantial discussion on a subject indicates notability. (I am, as I have said, an advocate of putting it into a secondary back-up position, but that's another matter from totally rejecting it.) If we do reject it, we must go we go by what is actually important either in a common-sense way, or according to some sort of specific rational criteria, and in that case the specific material found about by Drmies is fully sufficient. there is a third alternative--to explicitly accept IDONTLIKEIT as the primary reason. Is there anything else? (I Don't Think It's Important Because Such Things Are Not Important = IDon'tLikeIt). DGG (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems silly to duplicate a page of information in two articles. Multiply that by 200 countries on a single page, the Foreign Relations of X are already too big. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but by the same token, if there are 200 countries in the world, there are potentially 200*199/2=19900 "X-Y relations" articles. Isn't "Foreign Relations of X" a better organization for that, broken out in the rare cases of e.g. "Canada-U.S. relations"? In any event, I read this as rough consensus on this approach. I know not everyone agrees with that. JJL (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No nexus for being notable. If we need such stuff, single country articles should suffice -- until one is written, delete these. Collect (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please look at the article in question as even a cursory glance shows that it is an obviously "notable" relation, which is why there is no honest or legitimate reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Collect. WIkipedia is not and indiscriminate collection of information. Per WP:GNG we need significant coverage of the topic (topic = Belgium-Mexico relations) in reliable, independent, secondary sources to justify an article. We don't have that. We have a collection of sources, but none of them address the topic of these countries bilateral relations directly or in detail as required by WP:GNG. Yilloslime TC 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This notable subject cannot reasonably be called "indiscriminate" as the multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources included in the article justify its inclusion on our project by addressing the topic of these countries' bilateral relations directly and in detail as required by any common sense or logical inclusion guideline. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are Wikilawyering and arguing what the meaning of "is" is. There is no requirement that each reference cover all the information in the article in detail, just their specific information. This is an almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that there was a "requirement that each reference cover all the information in the article in detail." All I've ever maintained was that if WP is going to have a standalone article on a topic, then there need to be a least a couple of independent, reliable, secondary sources that address that topic directly and in detail. This is what WP:GNG says, I don't think there is any other way interpret it—this is not "wikilawyering" or arguing about the meaning of the word "is". The required sources certainly don't need to reference all of the material we might include in the article, we just need evidence that someone other than some random wikipedians thinks the topic is worth writing about. Once that bar is met, then an article on the topic can be created, and we can use our best judgement about what facts to include in that article. A fact that is obviously relevant to the topic of the article (e.g. date of official recognition, existence of treaties, etc.) can and should be included, even if the source for that fact doesn't mention it in the context of X-Y relations. But for a fact that is not obviously related or relevant, then we do need a source to put in context, otherwise the article rapidly become a collection of indiscriminate information. Yilloslime TC 23:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not calling the topic "indiscriminate", I'm calling the collection of facts in the article "indiscriminate". There's a difference. Not even one of the various reliable, independent, secondary sources included in the article address the topic of "Belgium–Mexico relations" directly or detail. WP:GNG is not met. Yilloslime TC 18:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"ChatterEmail is an application program for the Palm Treo PDA" and "The TAGIBook initiative, based in Jordan, aims to introduce an affordable basic computer for every Arab citizen" would be indiscriminate when combined into an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are hung up on the word "relations" as if it has to appear in all the references. Any synonym will do as covered in international relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Facts specifically pertinent to the relations between Belgium and Mexico and organized in a coherent manner as indicated by the chronology and section headings are clearly discriminately utilized. Because they discuss the topic in enough of a direct and detailed manner that we have been able to dramatically improve the article since nomination WP:GNG is undeniably met. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree. Words have meaning, and I don't just think that the fact that "The American and Belgian company Anheuser-Busch InBev owns a 50 percent share in Grupo Modelo," fits within the scope of the meaning of the term "Belgium–Mexico relations". If a reliable, independent source discussed this fact in the context of Belgium–Mexico relations, then I'd accept that it was related and therefore appropriate for the article. Without that, then this is just random, tangentially related piece of information that does nothing to inform our understand of "Belgium–Mexico relations." I mean how many partially and/or fully Belgian-owned companies have stakes in Mexico-based operations? There must hundreds; are we going list all of them in this article? Would that really inform anyone's understanding of "Belgium–Mexico relations"? Yilloslime TC 23:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am left with the impression that once LibStar nominates an article, delete votes appear to be automatic. I don't get the impression that the delete voters even read the article anymore. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please assume good faith. I certainly read the article in question each time--but I strongly feel we need a consistent way to handle bilateral relations articles, and think this way is, in general, not the best way to do so. Of course, there are exceptions. JJL (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was your comment: "Delete as usual for this way of addressing bilateral relations." Even when assuming good faith you made no indication of any Wikipedia policy involved in your rationale for deletion. You gave a rote statement that gave no indication you preformed, minimally a search, to see whether a stub could be expanded to a full article. You made no attempt to strike your original comment or change your vote when additional material was added to the article. While the statement was not directed at you personally, you provide an excellent example of what is wrong with a rote vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As there is a rote way of handling these types of articles that has come out of the bilateral relations discussions, and as this clearly doesn't rise to the level of an exception (such as U.S.-Canada relations), referring to the usual way of handling these types of articles seemed plain enough for me. As you can see, I have been following the discussion and changes. Your expectation that I should "strike your original comment or change your vote when additional material was added to the article" reflects your own bias regarding this material. I see it from a different angle. You seem to be having difficulty acknowledging that reasonable individuals might differ on this matter. JJL (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing "relative importance" which isn't a concern for Wikipedia. No one will deny U.S.-Canada relations has the most coverage in books and news, but Wikipedia only requires that the information be notable and verifiable. It meets both standards. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree concerning notability of this relationship--indeed, I see a lot of verifiable facts in the article but no cite for the claim that "Belgian-Mexican relations are important and notable" which would be needed under WP:N--but my argument is that WP also has style guidelines. In the face of a morass of X-Y relations articles, the suggestion has been made to handle them as Foreign Relations of X articles and only break out the lengthiest ones. It appears however that you have a lock on the WP:TRUTH here and that further discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. JJL (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Notability reads: "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." Once again you bring up a Wikipedia rule but don't quote it directly. And once again you are hung up on "important and notable" as if someone has to express these exact words for it to be true. Events and topics are notable when the media takes note of them and published information on them. There is no magic word that needs to used in the reference material. Any synonym will do it. Every article in the US relations series covers the same topics, and don't have the "magic word" either. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered that you got the wrong impression and that sometimes people say the same thngs more than once because they are appropriate more than once? I read them. I even voted to keep one today. But I often use the same or similar wording. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Events and topics are notable when the media takes note of them and published information on them." Ok. So the guy who got caught soliciting a prostitute last night and found his name, picture and arrest info in the paper this morning is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok here is that theoretical article: "John Doe was arrested last night in Red Hook, Brooklyn for soliciting a prostitute. New York District Attorney John Smith said that "Red Hook was becoming a red light district discouraging businesses from moving to the area" He pledged that "New York would be beginning a major crackdown on prostitution by hiring new police officers."
We have an exclusion for one time events as article topics, so an article called "John Doe" or "John Doe arrested" are excluded. However, the media coverage has information that could be used in an article on prostitution and on Red Light Districts. We have lots of articles on prostitution. It is still notable and verifiable, but excluded by the one event clause as an article topic for this man's arrest. Is that your new argument, that each individual event in the Belgium–Mexico relations article occurred only once, so is excluded by the one event rule? In theory any article in say The New York Times could be used as a reference no matter what the topic, if it provides a source for information already in an article, if it quotes a statistic, or defines a concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! Could you miss the point any further. Just forget it. I voted. I'm sticking with it. Removing it from my watchlist so I'm not tempted to do more. Done here. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A long history together, and current relations. Dream Focus 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To the editors who worked hard on sourcing and writing this, well done. The article is much more than the usual bilateral relations stub, and the relations between Belgium and Mexico are suitably demonstrated to be notable, especially by the trading links. There are specific sources found that directly discuss the relations between the two countries. Fences and windows (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources would those be? Yilloslime TC 04:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A whole book:[2]. Also see this Reuters report:Mexican President Felipe Calderon welcomed Belgium's Prince Philippe and Princess Mathilde, who are on an official four-day visit to Mexico, at the Presidential Residence of Los Pinos in Mexico City on Monday (March 23). Children waved Belgian and Mexican flags as national anthems of both countries started to play and an honour guard stood by. Calderon mentioned this was Prince Philippe's third visit to the country, confirming his personal interest in Mexico, its culture and his determination to strengthen the bilateral relationship. Calderon mentioned that in the last eight years, bilateral commerce grew more than 140 percent, going from nearly 700 million dollars to more than 1.7 million billion.[sic] "Today we have the opportunity to double our financial and commercial exchanges and I'm sure the large business delegation accompanying their royal highnesses will identify new opportunities for commerce and investment between Mexico and Belgium," Calderon said. Prince Philippe said the world faced challenges in poverty, injustice, organized crime and climate change and he hoped to discuss those themes with businessmen and Mexican government officials during his visit. "Commerce, cultural exchange and scientific cooperation and the collaboration links between Mexicans and Belgians, have brought us close together," Prince Philippe said. "We have come to Mexico accompanied by an important delegation of businessmen, with confidence in the future with regards to the bilateral corporation and commerce," Prince Philippe added. Belgium is Mexico's seventh largest European investor in the country." [3] and this report in El Informador:[4]. Check out this coverage of trips by Prince Philippe of Belgium to Mexico in the Spanish-speaking press:[5]. Here's some numbers from the Belgian Foreign Trade Agency:[6]. Fences and windows (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many references are required before an article becomes "mindful" and is considered no longer "mindless"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The existence of a book specifically on the subject matter (De Belgen en Mexico By Florence Loriaux) is a per se indication of notability.[7] Concern of the nominator about a lack of sourcing has been completely addressed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:31, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Belgium–Mexico_relations&oldid=1142173124"