All the discussion concerning the articles about the relationship between two nations, also known as Bilateral agreements.[edit]

Large numbers of country relationships articles nominated for deletion[edit]

DreamFocus, thanks so much for raising this important issue at ARS I think IKIP is right there maybe needs to be some sort of ruling to emphasise the importance of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE and if editors can be shown to be not following that maybe they could be asked not to raise any more AfDs for at least a month or something?

Alternatively if we can achieve some sort of consensus for a specific policy to ideally say bialateral relationships are inherently noteable , that would help calm things down a bit.

Otherwise as you say its really difficult to hold back the onslaught. They seem to have coalesced into a well balanced demolition crew. With energetic foot soldiers willing to raise dozens of AfDs per week, an officer class leading from the front zealously arguing against every single keep vote on many articles and even an elite maths guy to impress the closing admin with precise and convincing deletion arguments. By going after whole topic classes their developing increasingly tailored tactics as they can progressively refine their arguments while wearing down opponents. With each new deletion they can claim increasing precedents for the community not counting these articles as notable. Several of them have expressed a desire to have the entire series of bilateral relationship articles deleted, though cunningly they seem to going for the softer targets first. Its possible they even have an admin on board as in at least one case an AdF was closed as delete despite a lot of improvement and the keep votes being more numerous. Some of them acknowledge that at least some relationships are noteable, others seem to want to delete the entire class. Maybe Im overstating this, but it seems to me that even if they succeed in to obliterating the whole series, its unlikely their appetite for deletion will be slated. They may well move on to other classes of article , which will likely be even easier for them as unlike IR the articles they might not be obviously important for world prosperity and peace. If they cant be persuaded to stop they could well cut a swathe through the popular topics, and move towards their likely goal of turning the encyclopaedia into a sparse offering of maths, science and politics entries, with a few elite articles from high culture being allowed to survive to give the illusion of broad coverage. I've tried to raise this issue with the project group for this topic , but hardly one seems to be getting involved. Maybe they're just too diplomatic to want to tangle with the demolition crew. Only the ARS and a few other brave souls stands in their way. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's conspiracist nonsense. Can you please review WP:AGF and, while you're at it, WP:N? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, I believe youre doing what you think is in the best interests of the project. I cant understand why you dont see the value of us having a comprehensive set of articles on BR, but life is full of these mysteries. And Ive read WPN several times and agree it arguably supports the deletion of many of these articles, which is why Im hoping their will be an amended guideline. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We've seen groups of deletionists go around destroying every article they could before, and even stating they go after those they can get away with now, ones where not many people were around to protest, and then would take on the bigger ones later on. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Here its two editors nominating articles, and voting together to delete them, but in a far more civilized manner. I don't see either of them mass deleting things from an article's page, posting harassing messages on people's user pages threatening to ban them if they don't stop editing in a way they don't like, accusing everyone of being against them in personal attacks on the ANI, and other lame tactics. No going through and mass deleting the articles without consensus, replacing them with redirects either. Instead, I see some discussions on some of these articles before they are nominated, and then discussions going on in the AFD themselves. I find many of their arguments, such as how only somewhat related articles were deleted(how many noticed and participated and said delete?) or that we need news coverage to prove a fact no one doubts as legitimate, rather lame, but at least they are doing it in a civilized manner. And a fair set of rules, ones that don't change every week according to whoever is around at the time to argue about them on their guideline pages, would be great, but thus far we haven't managed to have that happen. Dream Focus 01:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at cases like the AFD for Bulgaria Uzbekistan relations doesn't it seem troublesome that some simply go through saying "delete" without looking at evidence provided for them? Its bad enough that so many have the mentality of trying to delete without doing even a passive search for sources themselves, believe that the job of anyone who wanted to keep it, but when such things are provided, to simply dismiss them outright, or not even read the arguments of others, but vote delete automatically in dozens of AFD within a matter of minutes, its just shameful. Not every single relations article so far has had results that clearly make it notable, but the majority of ones I've seen so far do. Dream Focus 03:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Ireland relations[edit]

I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That is insane so many of these things got nominated at once. Especially when most of the ones I've seen, end up being kept. You might want to consider joining the Rescue Squadron. Its a group dedicated to finding information for articles, and improving them so they are kept. When you see something that could be improved upon, you add in the Rescue tag, and then others can look through the list of articles currently tagged, and go there to try to help with it. Dream Focus 00:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral[edit]

Can you help add references to Moldova–Spain relations and New Zealand – Pakistan relations. Thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

All I could find on Moldova-Spain was that they shipped sex slaves there. I did some work, finding news articles and information from the CIA and state department on Moldova's problem and added a section for it on that nation's article: Moldova#Sex_slave_trade. A nation that has only 4 million people in it, with the history and current criminal problems like it has now, isn't going to have a lot of articles about them, other than their international sex slave problems. You need someone who speaks Spanish to search for new articles in Spain about Moldova. Dream Focus 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The New Zealand - Pakistan article has great potential though. Dream Focus 19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there references for the sex trade that I can add? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Before it got edited out, I had a link to ABC news and other places. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&oldid=293344040#Sex_slave_trade Googling around, there are plenty. But having crime in a separate article makes sense I suppose. Dream Focus 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Malta relations[edit]

perhaps you want to request a deletion review on this? it would satisfy your idea of notable relations. and this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Spain relations.LibStar (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I didn't see anything notable in that article previously, and thus saw no reason to comment in the AFD, why would I care about it now? I only try to save articles which are notable, as I have said before. And you are the one who does pointless DRV reviews when you don't get your way. Dream Focus 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

pointless? yet at least 5 admins commented this was a bad decision, so you think these admins have bad judgement too? I have only ever requested one ever deletion review in my life. you seem to think I go around requesting deletion review on every decision that doesn't go my way. and for your information, most bilateral articles I nominate for deletion, end up deleted. I regularly check a lot of these but most of them I don't nominate. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France – Papua New Guinea relations[edit]

This AfD debate which you participated in, with 9 arguments in favor of deletion and 4 in favor of retention, was just closed by an admin as keep. I've opened a DRV on the matter here [1].Bali ultimate (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

concerns over admin[edit]

For your information, you should read this over broader concerns from many many editors and admins over an admin who you like for his AfD closing manner Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Docu.27s_signature_violates_WP:SIGNATURE . LibStar (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I don't know anything about the guy, nor do I care to read about unrelated things. This was something concerning the issue at hand, and it was closed less than 17 hours after it started. I check the administrator's page just now, and found no one contacted him/her until the day after it was over. You can not close something that quickly, without even giving the person a chance to defend themselves. Dream Focus 15:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the full discussion, there is also concerns raised over his fitness as an admin. If you believe that one was closed prematurely, I encourage you to relist at ANI before complaining on talk pages and expecting something to be done. LibStar (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I read the discussion, and noticed it closed the same day, this time because its the wrong place for it. He has been signing just his name without a link to his page, for years now, never seeing a reason to change. You link to a conversation you had with him, about the closing of the bilateral articles, he asking what articles you ever created, and what you were trying to build, you unable to answer it. Why would he respond to someone who goes around trying to mass delete things, without ever actually creating anything? I don't see as how he has done anything wrong. Dream Focus 16:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

he's an admin, he shouldn't prejudge editors and answer questions when asked. of course you don't agree with the consensus that there are concerns over him. then again you do like admins that support your cause. without ever actually creating anything your prejudices and incorrect assumptions work again! see [2]. you are wrong! LibStar (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And you couldn't just answer him with that link before? Show that you have actually done work on these articles, and aren't just trying to mass delete everyone of them? And any discussion you have without the administrator being there, or which close the same day for no apparent reason at all than to stop opposing viewpoints from having time to be expressed, isn't valid. Do it properly, or no one can realistically expect to take it seriously. Dream Focus 16:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I love how you somehow spin this to my conversation with Docu...he never asked nor accused me of being a mass deletionist. I'm guessing you're not going to retract your accusation nor acknowledge my work on creating bilateral articles. I believe there's a lot of notable pairings that were totally missed and should be created. so just a reminder, don't go around making unjustified presumptions of people as evidenced in this conversation. LibStar (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[3], You seem to be trying to get him to admit he closed something wrong, while he is trying to reason with you that it isn't a vote, and he closed it properly. Anyway, you've destroyed far more than you ever created, and without any justifiable reason. Government websites are notable resources, there no one who would honestly doubt the treaty information on one as valid. There is no greater source for information of this type. To delete something because it wasn't mentioned in any newspaper written in a language anyone can search through, is rather ridiculous. Argue the same cycle with me in the AFDs and not here please, I really don't see any way to get through to someone locked into your mode of thinking, and don't want to be bothered with it. Dream Focus 18:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

and without any justifiable reason. I always do google news searches and check foreign ministry websites (where possible). I nominate articles because I believe they fail WP:N and WP:GNG, specifically significant third party coverage. that is clearly stated in these guidelines. Government websites are good to verify treaties but not necessarily to independently establish notability. I know you don't like bilateral articles being deleted, if you are unhappy with any of the deletions, request a deletion review and perhaps say "was deleted without any justifiable reason" and stop whinging. We have established procedures and processes in Wikipedia, these are the rules we all play by. I know if you had your way nothing would be deleted but that's not how Wikipedia works. Again you're happy to discount the creations I make, I'm all for notable bilateral relations to exist. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines = suggestions, not actual rules. Discussed that too many places already. See here. Also check out Common sense and Ignore all rules. Dream Focus 09:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations[edit]

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Islands – Venezuela relations[edit]

Please read what the closing admin said, you should know to prove notability in a poorly referenced article (this article had only 1 ref) you need to provide evidence of third party coverage, which you failed to do. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the opinions of whoever is around at the time, and the closing administrator. The same exact types of article survive sometimes and are destroyed other times. And stop pestering me on my talk page. You did not help the Wikipedia in any possible way by deleting that article, and really need to get a life. To have nothing better to do all day than try to destroy what others have created, for no valid reason at all, is truly pathetic. Dream Focus 04:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

funny that, you resort to personal attacks when you don't get your way. I've created much more notable bilateral articles and continue to work on improving them. if Groubani was such a good bilateral article creator why was he banned for excessive stub creation? and I didn't delete the article, the admin did. my comments still stand, you didn't provide an ounce of evidence to establish notability, didn't you notice what a fellow article rescuer said about you [4]. the time you spent arguing about this one could have been spent finding third party coverage, did you find anything? I don't think you even bothered to look unlike my nomination. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)