Deletion of Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination)

Comment: There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Estonia for "Luxembourg", and Luxembourg for "Estonia" shows ''nothing''. In Foreign relations of Estonia we learn when each country recognized the other, and whether or not each has an embassy in the other country (neither do). In Foreign relations of Luxembourg we find the same information. There is no |secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails ikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations|Bilateral relations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY||WP:W)

Comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonia%E2%80%93Luxembourg_relations&diff=293258997&oldid=293026957 version as restored by Dream Focus. Heard the rattle of sabers and clatter of small arms fire. Came to look in. Not involved in any prior attempts to either flush this article down the toilet or raise it unto the skies. Took a look at the earlier stub article. Saw its organization, its sourcing, it encyclopedic format. Looks very worthy of Wikipedia in informing readers interested in the subject of the relationship between Estonia and Luxembourg. Not like you're looking at some sort of tenuous relationship. With respects to all parties... I hope it not to out of line to point out that Wikipedia is not perfect |nor does it demand or expect to be. Wikipedia |encourages the protection of information so that they do not get lost among other articles or become usless to readers.  That small problems |should be handled without being made into large problems. It encourages boldness, yes, but for little edits. The big stuff needs discussion... not warring over content until one side or the other gives up out of frustration. AfD is not a vote. 200 arguments saying the same thing in 200 different ways can be countered by one cogent argument that uses policy and guideline to propely refute the 200... either for delete or for keep. It is the value of the arguments that closer considers, not the volume. These pages are not here for the editors... its not about us. Wikipedia is for the readers... whether a kid in Liverpool or a CEO in Boise... we're here for them.  And so.. with my keep opinion made and my comment said... I will put on my flack-jacket and leave the battlefield
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT||WP:PRESERVE||WP:HANDLE)

Comment: I would like to stress that this existence of this article is a direct contradiction to established procedures of deletion review and . If you see what's been happening, it is an attempt by the admin who's original ''keep'' closure decision was clearly overturned in the deletion review to somehow change this decision as shown by these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEstonia%E2%80%93Luxembourg_relations&diff=292806227&oldid=292594058 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20&curid=22742707&diff=292813214&oldid=292621200 which do not reflect the actual outcome of the deletion review of clear "overturn and delete" not recreate as disambiguation page. (this re-creation was performed on request of the original admin without consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:DAB)