Deletion of Argentina–Singapore relations

Comment: without prejudice to any further discussion being brought forward on any particular bilateral relation that doesn't have sources.  As can be shown above, for most relations sources can be found with a bit of digging, so they meet .  Therefore, I don't think a group nom is the best way to move forward on discussing what is to be done with these articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: and seriously ponder if we need ''any'' such articles. This whole series looks almost like someone is gaming the system, creating articles by randomly selecting any two countries. It's all inee minee miney moe, and "let's see other editors trying to figure out if this article can go anywhere". Even if any of these has notability, it could all be folded into some other articles - there is absolutely no need for these ones. And may I add: editors are instructed not to create articles that are very hard to link ''to'' (I have difficulty imaging an article where this could be done, and done in compliance with the ); this entire bilateral relations series, even "US-UK relations", comes pretty close to that situation, and in most cases it is an optimistic, overzealous and, dare I say it, scribomaniacal content fork. If anything, articles on such topics should be the exception, not the rule
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS)

Comment: The nomination fails  which requires more effort to  content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:PRESERVE)