Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norway – Sudan relations


 * 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. There are a couple !votes here that I'm not giving a lot of weight in my considerations. That all of these articles shouldbe kept is a valid position to hold, but is not backed by policy. Personal notability standards are even less so. Even said, Ive read the debate, I've read the sources, I've read the article. There's just no consensus here. Numerically there are a few more keeps than deletes, but several !votes on both sides were made with weak rationales, but there were also some good arguments for both keeping and deleting. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Norway – Sudan relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

YABRA (Yet another bilateral relations article). References are statistics of Norway and a link to another wiki page.

Nothing to indicate the respective foreign relations articles aren't enough, and we've had this discussion already on a thousand others. Shadowjams (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of multiple, independent sources actually discussing this relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as much as people think I'm a bilateral deletionist, there is a significant relationship here . LibStar (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, most of those look like Norway's statements about Darfur; I would bet my !vote that you can't find a UN country that hasn't made a statement about Darfur (largest 100, let's say). There's no unique arrangement though here, which is what I always thought the agreed upon standard was. Shadowjams (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Norway is more involved in South Sudan than in Darfur, but I may be wrong. Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. These articles should be kept as a matter of course. I find it hard to understand what the point is of these nominations. __meco (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "should be kept as a matter of course" is not a criterion for notability. Please explain how it addresses WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete fails my notability criteria. Yilloslime T C  16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stick to Wikipedia definitions of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are your criteria too focused on disputes and colonization? What about aid or the attempt thereof? Norway has quite notable relations with Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the vast majority of X-Y pairings fall into the In between situations category. Most of those X-Y parings that have been deleted were ones where they didn't have embassies and weren't otherwise involved in a dispute. In my experience, when countries lack embassies there are rarely sources available that address their relations directly and in any depth, so the pairing fails WP:GNG. So BR just tuns that observation into a rough guideline. There's not an intentional focus on disputes and colonization, this draft guideline just combines some common sense with general observations to come up with some rules of thumb. Yilloslime T C  19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep International relations are notable. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * they are not inherently notable as at least 100 of these bilateral articles have been deleted (and I'm saying this as someone who is !voting keep on this one). LibStar (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep enough reliable and verifiable information exists for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — Jesus christ, here we go again... This is a personal vendetta, isn't it? Just because an article deals with an esoteric topic does not mean it should be eliminated. Somebody did the work, it's done properly: VERACITY, VERIFIABILITY, NPOV. It's sourced and properly footnoted. Case closed. Notability is in the eye of the beholder. The fact that this is even being discussed for deletion is a waste of time. Channel deletionist energy elsewhere, por favor. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Personal vendetta? I don't think I've ever worked with you or the author of this article before. Your insinuation otherwise, aside from being wrong, is just rude

Next, this (or WP:ANI for the current one) is the related ANI discussion that began with a complaint against Richard in a discussion like this. That also provides some background on the epic battle that has been going on with these articles for about a year now. Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations appears to be the closest anyone got to a standard.

Finally, I naively thought this problem had been solved by merging content into the "Foreign relations of X" articles, which was what I thought the truce was back the fall of 2009. I guess I was wrong (and the vitriol above seems to confirm that). That's unfortunate because instead of discussing whether or not these relations meet notability, we're discussing a much larger meta-battle over some very entrenched ideas.

I hope future [and past] commenters here will engage the actual argument about the sources, as Libstar did to me, and I responded (those are fair arguments; I'm not convinced, but it's a real discussion that's occurring). Shadowjams (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Another reasonable nom at the time, but again the article has been tranformned by RAN. Never mind barnstars, the man deserves a medal from the UN! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As the article now stands, it appears to have enough information to convince an objective reader that this is a notable subject. -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:HEY, and Llywrch. We keep even the unlikely and weird bilateral relations articles.  There is quite a bit of substantive commentary on the two countries' relationship, the impact on Norway itself, good clean images, and several good sources.  It might have been a crappy stub two days ago, but it looks good now.  I don't like the tone of the nominator.  Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NAM.  I will assign an essay on it tomorrow. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC) P.S. Under User:Yilloslime/BR, I think this passes as well. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. That has to be one of the most ironic assertions of WP:CIVIL I've ever seen. While we're assigning essays, go have a look at WP:CIVIL yourself and WP:NPA (well, the latter's not an essay, it's a guideline). Shadowjams (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the subject, you're one of the targets of Richard's early canvassing campaigns, the one that sparked the ANI thread: here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, Bearian doesn't sound unduly incivil to me. I wouldn't have used the same words she/he did, but Bearian didn't call Yilloslime "stupid", "ignorant", or otherwise disparage her/his ethnicity, religious beliefs or sexual preference. We need to allow some slack for lost tempers -- or all of us would be eventually banned permanently for what we write to trolls & other troublemakers. -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't like the tone of the nominator. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NAM.  I will assign an essay on it tomorrow." I don't like Bearian's tone, particularly given his context in this bilateral relations issue. Shadowjams (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't you folks take a joke? First of all, I agree with Yilloslime.  Secondly, I think the tone of the nominator was in fact uncivil.  Thirdly, my references to CIVIL and NAM were so that people could step back a little while and get some perspective.  Finally, my comment about assigning an essay is regarding how I'd respond in my classroom to such unprofessionalism.  I may be pendantic, but I am never rude and rarely crass. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't get the sense you were making a joke, and I'm pretty sure you're still calling my nomination uncivil, despite some quite reasonable opposition. I asked you about this objection days ago, you never responded to it. That's fine because you're responding here, but my above explanation was a part of that. Maybe it's that you don't like acronyms. My naivety [see above] response should explain that. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, and I've been called out on my mistakes before, but I don't think this is a mistake, especially when an administrator is canvassed, the canvasser is admonished, then the cycle repeats. I made a nomination that explains, has been supported by a number of long-standing editors, and while it may ultimately fail (I'll leave it to the closing admin to weigh the influx of bilateral relations editors), I have hardly badgered opposes, or done anything else uncivil. So no, I don't agree that I've been uncivil, nor do I appreciate you calling me that, nor do I think you're objective in this matter. So no, it's not a joke, and your attempt to backtrack is transparent to say the least. I'm not talking about my professional status here either, and I would never [I hope] use it to justify my position. Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Libstar's link should convince any reasonable person there is overwhelming coverage of the relationship between the two nations.   D r e a m Focus  10:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Libstar !voted keep, there's really no other way this one will come out.--Milowent (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete—the article only emphasises quite how insignificant the Sudo-Norweigan relationship is. Lack of germane reliable sources. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  CANUKUS  ─╢ 15:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per TreasuryTag. Couldn't have said it better myself.    talk 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As it stands after the expansion and the addition of several sources, the article demonstrates that the relationship between these two countries is well-documented and notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Covers Norway's involvement in the War in Darfur and substantial humanitarian aid. Notability is established through multiple references. Gobonobo  T C 19:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sudan and Norway seem to have substantial interactions. I found 3,820 Google news results for "Norwegian" "Sudan", suggesting expansion of article is possible. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - "Pencil and Norway and Sudan" returns About 101,000 results. Shadowjams (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I only get 493 results. Besides, I'm talking Google News results. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm just saying, as I did in my first response, that Darfur statements and normal relations will generate some news. Your link's first hit is to a shopping site, of which the link is dead. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the Google News results indicated that there is a lot going on, if one reads them. The Google Books results coughs up "In relation to the Sudan Norway has also played a high-profile role, primarily as a substantial provider of humanitarian aid, but also as an occasional participant in the peace process...", "Norwegian involvement in the Sudan would be an appreciation of the unique position of Norway in relation to that country...", "Norway played a substantial role in negotiating a peace agreement between the Sudan's North and South", "Sudan has had no official representation in the Scandinavian countries since the closure of its embassy in Stockholm, Sweden, and, until recently, relations with Norway were difficult, with Sudan accusing...". This constitutes exactly the sort of analysis by secondary sources lacking in other bilateral relations articles. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, another nonsensical synthesis of random facts to suggest that this is a notable topic. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, Substantial interactions and multiple references. What Stifle above calles "synthesis of random facts" is by all means not WP:SYN (no novel conclusion is reached), but it is the very stuff encyclopedias are made of: collection of sourced information from multiple sources in a coherent, structured fashion. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.