This article was nominated for deletion on 3 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the sentence about how Mexico recently adopted the Danish mortgage system because it seems wholly unrelated to the topic of Denmark-Mexico relations. None the 3 articles cited provide any evidence of any actual interaction between the two countries (although I only had access to the first two paragraphs of the Economist article.) If Mexican officials had conferred extensively with the Danish government on this, that would be one thing, but there's no evidence of that, at least in the cited sources. For all we know, the Mexican government read about the Danish system in a book and decided to implement it in their country. To put it another way, if Indian style curry suddenly became popular in Mexico because a cooking show featured Channa Masala, would this constitute a significant or notable cultural relationship between Indian and Mexico? Or how about this way: If you knew nothing about Mexico-Denmark relations, and then read the sources on the mortgage issue, would you come away feeling like you knew anything more about Mexico-Denmark relations? Are the good? Are they deteriorating? Do the countries have historical ties? You'd have no sense. All you'd know is that the Mexicans thought that the Danes handled their mortgages in a better way, and decided to copy them. Yilloslime T C 03:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Assuming a topic is notable, it's up to the editors to decide which verifiable facts get put into that article. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR help to guide those content decisions. We also have to take into account relevance--in the case of say Bill Clinton scores of books and thousands of articles have been written on the man. There are millions of facts which our article on him could mention. As editors, we've got to decide which are the most relevant for the article. My point here is that we are not obligated to include every tangentially related factoid into an article, no matter how well sourced. And the fact that Mexican mortgage system is modeled on the Danish system is simply not relevant. There's no evidence or reason to assume that in making this decision the Mexican gov't interacted with or had any dealings or connections with the Danish gov't or private sector. No evidence of an affliation, rapport, or bond, or any liaising or linking. Perhaps there's a correlation, but that's not good enough. Yilloslime T C 16:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
@A Nobody: I don't think "influence" should be fodder for these bilateral relations articles. I think we need restrict ourselves to active interactions between countries. If the scope is expanded to mere influence, that the opens the flood gates for all kinds of irrelevancies. For example, it's easy to find pizza in Mexico city--should Mexico-Italy relations therefore claim that there is an Italian influence on Mexican culture as evidenced by all this pizza? I hope not. Maybe Canadian whiskey is popular in some sectors, should this be mentioned in Canada-Mexico relations? What about Swiss cheese. Should the availability of Swiss cheese in country X be noted in every Swiss-X relation article? Yilloslime T C 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I seek external viewpoints on whether or not this information (as discussed above) should be included. LibStar ( talk) 05:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the general concept that economic ties can and should be included in these bilateral relations articles. But for the record, I have doubts about the relevance of the fact that Maersk has invested in Mexico. Maersk is a huge shipping company that does business with just about every major country in the world. If they did not do business in Mexico, that would be truly revealing. Yilloslime T C 03:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the sentence about how Mexico recently adopted the Danish mortgage system because it seems wholly unrelated to the topic of Denmark-Mexico relations. None the 3 articles cited provide any evidence of any actual interaction between the two countries (although I only had access to the first two paragraphs of the Economist article.) If Mexican officials had conferred extensively with the Danish government on this, that would be one thing, but there's no evidence of that, at least in the cited sources. For all we know, the Mexican government read about the Danish system in a book and decided to implement it in their country. To put it another way, if Indian style curry suddenly became popular in Mexico because a cooking show featured Channa Masala, would this constitute a significant or notable cultural relationship between Indian and Mexico? Or how about this way: If you knew nothing about Mexico-Denmark relations, and then read the sources on the mortgage issue, would you come away feeling like you knew anything more about Mexico-Denmark relations? Are the good? Are they deteriorating? Do the countries have historical ties? You'd have no sense. All you'd know is that the Mexicans thought that the Danes handled their mortgages in a better way, and decided to copy them. Yilloslime T C 03:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Assuming a topic is notable, it's up to the editors to decide which verifiable facts get put into that article. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR help to guide those content decisions. We also have to take into account relevance--in the case of say Bill Clinton scores of books and thousands of articles have been written on the man. There are millions of facts which our article on him could mention. As editors, we've got to decide which are the most relevant for the article. My point here is that we are not obligated to include every tangentially related factoid into an article, no matter how well sourced. And the fact that Mexican mortgage system is modeled on the Danish system is simply not relevant. There's no evidence or reason to assume that in making this decision the Mexican gov't interacted with or had any dealings or connections with the Danish gov't or private sector. No evidence of an affliation, rapport, or bond, or any liaising or linking. Perhaps there's a correlation, but that's not good enough. Yilloslime T C 16:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
@A Nobody: I don't think "influence" should be fodder for these bilateral relations articles. I think we need restrict ourselves to active interactions between countries. If the scope is expanded to mere influence, that the opens the flood gates for all kinds of irrelevancies. For example, it's easy to find pizza in Mexico city--should Mexico-Italy relations therefore claim that there is an Italian influence on Mexican culture as evidenced by all this pizza? I hope not. Maybe Canadian whiskey is popular in some sectors, should this be mentioned in Canada-Mexico relations? What about Swiss cheese. Should the availability of Swiss cheese in country X be noted in every Swiss-X relation article? Yilloslime T C 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I seek external viewpoints on whether or not this information (as discussed above) should be included. LibStar ( talk) 05:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the general concept that economic ties can and should be included in these bilateral relations articles. But for the record, I have doubts about the relevance of the fact that Maersk has invested in Mexico. Maersk is a huge shipping company that does business with just about every major country in the world. If they did not do business in Mexico, that would be truly revealing. Yilloslime T C 03:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)