Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep. Proposed guidelines are generally not deleted, but instead marked as historical/rejected. Attempting to use a proposed draft guideline in a deletion discussion must not happen, as there is not yet a community consensus behind the guideline. A RFC should be started once the proposed guideline is in a "stable" state. Nakon 03:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability (bilateral relations)


this "draft guideline" was created by a user to conveniently and not so coincidentally support his argument at Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations. Articles for deletion/Patricia Eugenia Cárdenas Santa María (2nd nomination) the claim in this guideline that all bilateral relations, ambassadors and embassies are automatically notable carries no weight and does not reflect community consensus. There have been been several hundred in total of all of these deleted, so community consensus is clear there is no inherent notability. there was a lengthy discussion a few months ago to give ambassadors inherent notability at WP:BIO but this did not eventuate. creating draft guidelines not based on strong community consensus and to back your own argument in an AfD at the same time is not advisable. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:LibStar: (1) That AfD is over, so the use of this proposal in that AfD is irrelevant. (2) The purpose of this proposal is to seek consensus for a guideline. (3) I can't remember if I looked at that AfD before or after I created the guideline. The primary motivation was discussions on the talk page of BIO, the text of DIPLOMAT, discussions about the notability of bilateral treaties and non binding agreements, and the earlier "bilateral relationships" rejected proposal (which I felt was too much of a mess to expand) and my own views. Since I cited the draft in that AfD, I probably did not see the AfD until after the proposal was created. You'll have to forgive me if my memory has failed on this occasion, but I am not getting any younger, and I am coming under a lot of pressure here. I certainly did not create it for the purpose of that AfD. In fact, my argument in that AfD consisted entirely of certain words in the introduction to BIO ("significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention"). I didn't cite the proposal as an argument at all. I have had this in mind for a many months, and would have created it anyway. I have repeatedly said that I think we should have SNGs for all fields, because GNG is subjective and vulnerable to systematic bias in our sources. (4) Draft proposals do not have to be based on strong community consensus. James500 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete There is some discussion going on at the project page and hopefully others will join in. I do not see a policy based reason to delete. At this time I am undecided on whether <Userfy or Keep is more appropriate so this should not be read as a Keep !vote. This page was created by a single user seemingly to support their !vote in a deletion discussion. There has been no editing of the page or discussion with other editors about these supposed, proposed guidelines and, as stated, they run counter to current consensus at AfD on the topics addressed. While a guideline on this topic may be of use it should be proposed on the Notability talk page where discussion among several editors can take place not by creating a guideline and trying to use it to bolster an AfD position. J bh  Talk  03:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Updated !vote based on WP:PROPOSAL  J bh  Talk  21:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)  Reinstated DELETE !vote above per WP:IAR if this is brought up for RfC now it will essentially poison the well for any near or intermediate term progress on the topic. No one seems to want to help actually write the proposal and 's desire to call a 'snap RfC' on the proposal as it was initially written will not garner anything other than a rehash of the arguments on this page. Please note the version James500 wants a 'snap RfC' on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(bilateral_relations)&oldid=668985629] says only, all Ambassadors, Embassies and bilateral relations are notable. There are a few more words to the actual draft but not many. That proposal has zero chance of passing and really is not a proposal at all.  J bh  Talk  19:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a proposal no matter how ill considered you may think it. James500 (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - while I fully intend to support a well-written essay or guideline in the future about the notability of ambassadors or SOME bilateral relations, this draft is NOT appropriate to be mentioned in an AfD and most alarming it is NOT in draft space!!! As said above, a guideline should be proposed and discussed among multiple editors, not spontaneously created for one AfD. The editor created it purely to support his position (since he had nothing else to use to support it) and then claimed we WP:IAR about it just being a draft, and possibly fool less experienced AfD commentators, and I almost feel this should be brought up at WP:ANI.  —Мандичка YO 😜 14:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Wikimandia: That is untrue from start from finish. WP:PROPOSAL does not require that a draft proposal be created in the draftspace (which is for draft articles) nor that it be discussed by multiple editors. I did not create the proposal for that AfD. Also, my main argument in that AfD was WP:GNG, not IAR. I invoked it so prominently that I cannot believe you read my comments with anything remotely approaching the level of care required. And these kind of accusations are supposed to be supported by diffs. I hope you will apologise for misrepresenting what I said. James500 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason why I pointed out it belonged in draftspace was because I assumed it was far from finished. It is so short and so brief and consists of sections such as "Places" ("An embassy is notable.") and "Treaties" ("A bilateral treaty is notable.") Second, the issue here is not that you also claim this article meets GNG. The issue is your introduction of this draft into the AfD discussion. Here are your exact words how you introduced this proposal into the AfD: "The bilateral relations of two countries that have such relations are per se notable (WP:NBILATERAL, WP:IAR (mentioning this policy since someone will probably argue that the preceding page is a draft)"  I am not apologizing as I did not misrepresent anything.  —Мандичка YO 😜 15:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Wikimandia: Your words "since he had nothing else to use to support it", refering to my "position", above necessarily implied that I had not invoked GNG (or anything else) as an argument, and that I had no sources. So it was misrepresentation. You are still quote mining, as my next words were "WP:N (lead section says a topic is notable if it "worthy of notice" in the ordinary meaning of those words), cf. "significant [or] interesting ... enough to deserve attention" in lead section of WP:BIO, which I suggest is intended as a principle of general application)" and I had previously said "satisfies GNG", invoking Nomian's news sources. And I didn't suggest we IAR about it being a draft, the rule that I was suggesting we ignore, with respect to possibility of inherent notability, but not with respect to the sources available, was GNG itself. Because there is no rule against invoking draft proposals for us to ignore. It is marked as draft not because it is far from finished, but because, having created something as narrow as I thought possible, I wanted see if there was any support for the notability of other diplomats, consulates, and non binding agreements. I have actually heard suggestions that "soft law" non binding agreements in force, and all heads of mission, whether they are ambassadors or not, should be notable. So there are editors even more inclusionist than me. James500 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC) If you are really concerned about it being marked as a draft proposal, I can mark it as an actual proposal. I see nothing wrong with guidelines being short and simple. In fact, I consider that preferable. James500 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You tend to claim everything meets GNG and Nomian's claim do not support GNG. If they did, there would no need to bring up this draft at all. You're picking apart my comment to claim you were misrepresented - the problem is you bringing this up at all in TWO AfDs. That was your own behavior and cannot be misrepresented. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Wikimandia: (1) I do claim everything meets GNG. I do not !vote against many AfDs, and I leave many PRODs untouched, because I agree with them. I have also tagged several hundred articles for speedy deletion. I could not be called an inclusionist. (2) Since Nomian's sources do support GNG, there was no need to bring up this proposal. But that is irrelevant. There is no rule against advancing redundant arguments, nor would one serve any purpose. Why shouldn't I advance redundant arguments? If, for example, a person satisfies both GNG and PROF, why shouldn't I mention both? (3) As for "the problem is you bringing this up at all in TWO AfDs", that isn't what you said above. There is no rule against citing proposals at AfD, and the number of contributors to them is irrelevant. (4) My behaviour is irrelevant to whether this proposal should be deleted. If you don't like my citation of this proposal in the AfD, the solution is to ask me to strike or redact it. To nominate it for deletion simply with the object of influencing the outcome of the AfD, instead of its merits (and I think it is a fantastic proposal), is certainly POINT. James500 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just noticed what you said earlier. How is this not a lie? "And I didn't suggest we IAR about it being a draft, the rule that I was suggesting we ignore, with respect to possibility of inherent notability, but not with respect to the sources available, was GNG itself." You DID use IAR about it being a draft. That is exactly why you put in IAR. You words: "The bilateral relations of two countries that have such relations are per se notable (WP:NBILATERAL, WP:IAR (mentioning this policy since someone will probably argue that the preceding page is a draft)" If you are claiming you cited IAR about GNG that makes no sense, since you claimed this article met GNG, so why would you advise that there were any rules to ignore in the first place?  —Мандичка YO 😜 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already explained why this line of reasoning is erroneous at the AfD. James500 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Snowball keep No valid rationale for deletion. The draft proposal was not created for the purpose of the Azerbijan-Bangladesh AfD, as I have explained there. It was created after a previous AfD, and various other discussions I've participated in on various talk pages, such as the talk pages of BIO, and another failed proposal, and the diplomatic notability essay. I should point out that attributing ulterior motives for which there is no evidence to other editors is not appropriate. The sole purpose of this draft proposal is to propose a new guideline. If this draft proposal does not reflect consensus, it should either be edited to reflect present or emerging consensus or marked as rejected. It does not get deleted. That is not allowed. IIRC, it is explicitly forbidden to use MfD for that purpose. In any event, proposals do not have to reflect existing consensus as they are supposed to be attempts to form a new consensus. That is why their template says that they have not reached the stage of gathering consensus. Draft proposals do not have to be discussed on the talk pages of any existing guideline before their creation. And they are not "draft guidelines" as described above. We do not delete draft proposals for the reasons that are being advanced here. I am also deeply concerned that the nominator did not notify me of this nomination. James500 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * inappropriate snowball keep. Snow ball is when there is unanimous consensus, in fact everyone above you opposes your view, you simply love twisting the rules. It's laughable that you think this is snow ball. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:LibStar: No, consensus is not a vote. "Snowball keep" is when there are no valid arguments for deletion, and no prospect of any being advanced. The bottom line is that we don't delete proposals we don't like. We mark them as rejected. That's what we do. So this nomination is out of process. James500 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

do you take me as a fool? This is not a snow ball. Snowflakes chance in hell, this is a snow keep but reply with some convoluted response. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think he knows what WP:SNOW means. Honestly I'm beginning to feel this is a WP:CIR issue we're dealing with. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Wikimandia: "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." A nomination based entirely on, and supported only by, invalid arguments, with no prospect of any valid arguments for deletion being made, has no chance of being accepted, if the closing admin knows what he is doing. They are supposed to ignore !votes that contain no valid arguments. And I don't see any valid arguments for deletion. And I suspect that I may have a better understanding of NOTBURO than you. James500 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * find me one admin that would be willing to close this as snow keep. But wait I hear a long winded excuse ridden deflecting response being written. LibStar (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:LibStar: I can't ask individual admins to come and close this. That would be canvassing. James500 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

yep, another excuse and denial that snow doesn't apply here. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you want me to start canvassing possible closers? I cannot do that. If you want a precedent, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (sports) was unanimously closed as speedy keep. Every single participant !voted for that result. I can't find a single instance of a notability proposal being deleted at MfD, despite many attempts, so I think we can infer that there is no prospect of that ever happening. James500 (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * the fact you still can't realise this does not qualify for snow keep shows a real lack of competency. But you'll reply again with some long winded excuse ridden response. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - It should also be pointed out that  brought it up at another AfD and stated it should be followed as it's a "correct" interpretation of guideline: "We should, therefore, follow the draft notability criteria of WP:NBILATERAL, which are a correct exposition of that basic idea." .  —Мандичка YO 😜 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Wikimandia: There is nothing wrong with me saying 'I think the correct interpretation of BIO is X'. And how proposals and essays are cited at AfD has nothing to do with their merits and therefore has no relevance to whether they should be deleted. If it did, we would have to delete WP:MILL right now. James500 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't say "I think/feel it's the correct interpretation," did you? You said your draft SHOULD be followed because it IS the correct interpretation. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any real difference. James500 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you really don't understand the difference between stating "I think the correct interpretation of BIO is X" and "it must be followed because it is correct" then I think sadly you do not have the competence required to contribute to discussions on Wikipedia. (And I'm saying that's what I think, not that it is fact, because I understand the difference.) —Мандичка YO 😜 03:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Your argument seems to be extreme hair splitting. Comments at AfD do not need to be written with the semantic precision of a mathematical formula. There is no meaningful difference in ordinary speech between "we should do X", "X is the correct thing to do", "I think we should do X" and "I think X is the correct thing to do" and so forth. The words "should" and "must" do not necessarily mean the same thing either. I don't think that anyone would fail to understand what I said unless they had a very weak grasp of the English language. (2) I am far more competent than you. James500 (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have edited the proposal to express my understanding of the current consensus notability of bilateral relations. And removed the ultra-contentious topic of Ambassadors. I also removed the section on Embassies and made it clear the proposal had no current consensus to be used in discussions of notability. J bh  Talk  18:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Jbhunley: Thank you for your edits to the proposal. They don't really reflect my opinions, but they may in some respects be an improvement on GNG. Would you now agree that the arguments above for the deletion of this proposal no longer apply to it in its current form? Would you now agree that the draft proposal should be kept and improved? James500 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on my reading of WP:PROPOSAL it is not really a proposal until it is placed in RfC. As it stands I do think it should be worked on quite a bit in user space or draft space to bring it up to a quality level that has a chance of passing RfC. I posted a link at WikiProject: International Relations to try to get more editors to show up here and/or there. If more people start editing/commenting on it I will strike my delete !vote. Right now I admit that there seems to be no policy to delete but as it stands I do not think it should be kept because it pretty much rewords just rewords GNG. My concern is in how you used it and how others might use it in deletion discussions to imply some form of consensus to readers who do not click through to the actual page where it says Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy" nor yet even as a proposal. (Emp. mine) . I admit that is not a good basis for deletion so I am stating it so the closer can take it into account. I would be willing to work on crafting a notability policy on bilateral relations either on the page, if it is kept, or in user space. Whichever there need to be a lot more editors commenting on it before I would be comfortable seeing it cited at AfD.  J bh  Talk  18:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Jbhunley: It does add to GNG. You've removed "independent" (which is reasonable because it would be ludicrous to require all the sources to be independent of two whole countries) and "secondary" (which is ambiguous, confusing, open to extensive objections for certain types of sources at least, and has never been taken particularly seriously, being used a code word for "good source" by the vast majority of our editors who still have no idea what it means). "And only if" will have to be removed because an SNG that says GNG can't be used as an argument for keeping an article has little chance of achieving consensus. "It might be cited at AfD" is an argument that would require the deletion of all notability essays. There is no question of imposing restrictions on what can be cited at AfD. James500 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How about copying this thread over to the article talk page? As to your comments I actually did not really consider those points when I did the changes, although I should have. If I had I would probably have used 'independent, third party reliable source'. By this I would mean to exclude 'press release' type announcements, from embassies, government press officers and the like. I would also consider trivial mentions of normal diplomatic functions to not contribute to notability. J bh  Talk  21:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Independent, third party" could be problematic. Some people might argue that a bilateral treaty wasn't an independent source, yet even you agree that treaties contribute to notability, and excluding it would be undesirable. Some people might argue that a source is not independent unless it was foreign. And that would also be ludicrous. I would not approve of automatically excluding sources like command papers either. This also exposes one of the weak points of GNG. If what we want to do is ensure we can write an article of reasonable length, we do need a sufficient amount of information in reliable sources, but we don't need them to be independent. And if we want to ensure that our topic has been noticed by the wider world, we do need an independent source, but there does not seem to be any reason why its coverage should be lengthy, particularly as some 'general' sources aim to be concise. James500 (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep . Assuming  and  are independent editors, this page is now a multi-authored draft headed towards being Proposed.  We don't delete Wikipedia history.  This draft's future is to be a policy/guideline page, or to be tagged failed.  Even if it were just a foolish single author idea, it still should not be deleted, but userfied.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that Jbhunley has changed their vote to delete. — Keφr 09:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. The single author, James500, writes nonsense, and Jbhunley was only involved in trying to correct he nonsense, and does not wish to be recorded as a co-author of it.  James500's new sub-notability draft proposal pages should be deleted from projectspace.  They are acceptable in his userspace as disputed single author opinion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:SmokeyJoe: In all fairness, the proposals are not "nonsense" by any reasonable standard. Even if they are a truly stupid terrible idea, that doesn't make them "nonsense". That isn't what that word means. The other two are actually copied, or based, on existing guidelines (AUTHOR and OBK). James500 (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:SmokeyJoe: I should also point out that they are not single author opinion, as users other than myself have expressed support for each of these propositions on other pages. Would you like a list of names and diffs? I'll be happy to supply it. James500 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'll give you some diffs anyway. Here is User:Necrothesp saying that all ambassadors, at least from and to major countries, are notable. (Okay, there is a slight difference, but it could easily be added to the proposal, and I take the words "at least" to mean "really I think their probably all notable"). Embassies has to follow from that. The essay WP:DIPLOMAT, which I did not write, also concurs with the proposal, and is even more inclusive (an ambassador will always be a head of mission). Here is User:Mendaliv saying that all bilateral treaties (and non binding agreements) in force satisfy GNG, meaning they are notable. (Okay, "in force" is a slight difference, but those words could easily be added, and I don't think it matters). Here, if I read him correctly, is User:RekishiEJ saying that the bilateral relations of two countries that have such relations are notable. (Option 1, which he endorses, reads "All articles describing bilateral relationships (Country A-Country B) are inherently notable.") That is squarely in support of what I proposed. So that is two people (roughly) in support of each proposition, not a single person. I'm sure that if I dig through the archives of AfD, I'll find many more. If your only reason for arguing for userfication is that I am the sole person who supports the terms of the proposal, please reconsider your !vote, because that simply does not appear to be true (short of extreme nit picking that could be addressed by minor amendments). James500 (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The second diff says that treaties in force satisfy current criteria of notability, which implies that having them declared notable by fiat, in a policy/guideline/whatever like this is superfluous. The third diff similarly says that current policies handle "foreign relations" topics sufficiently well and no further rules are necessary. I can grant that the first diff agrees with you, but one other agreeing person is hardly impressive. — Keφr 16:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually one of the accepted purposes of SNGs is to identify those topics that generally satisfy GNG, in order to avoid wasting time on doing a BEFORE that can only have one outcome, so I think Mendaliv is broadly on my side. What RekishiEJ says is that he supports Option 1 described above and that he thinks that each bilateral relationship is notable if it satisfies V, NOR and NPOV, and 'the "foreign relations of XXX" is sound enough' (which presumably means that each country has its foreign relations properly described in its own article or a standalone article). He is not saying the bilateral relations have to satisfy GNG, or anything like that. Anyway, identifying one editor who supports me is enough to answer SmokeyJoe's rationale. James500 (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. While possibly gamesmanship, it's still valid as a proposal (and an actual guideline seems like it could be useful to have eventually). If the results at AFD continue in the same line, it'll be tagged as failed but otherwise it's still a proposal. My suggestion is to start another proposal that you think actually reflects consensus and then see if that proposal can be elevated and this article should be userified then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I pretty much re-wrote the page to say the opposite of what it said initially. There does not seem to be any interest from others in expanding it. I do not know what the process for proposals/draft proposals is, I got involved with it because it was a new, single author 'guideline' that did not reflect consensus as I, or the other editors at that AfD, understand it. If MfD is not the proper forum then should it be put up for RfC to get more input and pass/fail it? I posted a notice at Wikiproject: International Relations that discussion was going on here and at the project page since notice was not posted when the draft was created. I do not know where to go from here.  J bh  Talk  12:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See Policies_and_guidelines. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am interested in expanding it. James500 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * J bh, as you have contributed usefully, and the idea is reasonable, unless you are very clear that you want this deleted or removed from Wikipedia space, I think that it has to stay as a valid proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My first choice would be to delete it if there is some valid way to do so. I do not believe such a guideline can pass and GNG has worked pretty well in the topic area. I struck my delete !vote above only because I did not see a policy based way to delete it. At some point an NBILATERAL might be of use but without several more people working on it this proposed proposal has zero chance of passing. I would prefer to avoid taking a proposal I do not feel strongly about through RfC simply to mark it failed but just leaving it in limbo seems wrong too. If there is some proper way to delete it I say delete it. J bh  Talk  13:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we can mark a proposal as failed without an RfC. We normally mark a proposal as failed to let editors know that the idea has been tried before. If this was deleted, someone else would create something very similar sooner or later. We would have an endless cycle of deletions and re-creations. Another possibility would be merger/redirection to Notability (bilateral relationships), though we normally don't do that for proposals that differ significantly. I wouldn't worry about the number of people presently participating when considering deletion. If we leave this up, other people who are a more balanced and representative sample of the community will show up eventually, even if it takes a long time. James500 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete- The previous version was contrary to policy and communty practice. It was extreme inclusionist "everything is notable" bilge, and was used deceptively at AfD. There's precedent for deleting miscellany if its purpose is to game the system. The current version is closer to rationality, but its author doesn't want it around. So I really don't see a compelling reason to keep it. Reyk  YO!  13:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * excellent points Reyk . Watch as James500 comes back with a long winded excuse ridden response. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Reyk: You know perfectly well that was not the purpose of the thing. I could just as easily accuse you of gaming the system by !voting to delete the page because you are frightened that, given time, it might achieve consensus and become a guideline, and because it conflicts with your own extreme deletionist personal opinions about deletion. The "extreme inclusionist everything is notable bilge" comment could be construed that way. But we are supposed to assume good faith. And I would be grateful if you would afford me the same courtesy. "Contrary to policy" is not a valid argument because the purpose of proposals is to change policy. Contrary to community practice is not a valid argument because the purpose of proposals is to propose new practices. The RfC of the proposal process can create consensus for both. It was not used deceptively (I clearly stated it was a draft in express words, therefore claiming it was used deceptively is itself deceptive) and, in any event, that argument would require the deletion of all essays and proposals. The proposal did not say that everything is notable. Nor was it even close to that. It excluded many diplomats, all consulates and other buildings that are not embassies, and all non binding agreements. There are editors (not myself) who support the notability of all these things. There probably is an emerging consensus for the notability of ambassadors and embassies. The proposal was framed in what I thought close to being the narrowest terms possible short of a rehash of GNG.
 * @The second sentence of your preceding comment does not appear to be constructive. James500 (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * as I predicted, a long winded response. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments like that ought to be redacted as unconstructive. James500 (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * and persistently pushing the idea this is a snow keep is unconstructive. some advice, less long winded responses would be seen less of WP:BLUDGEON which you've done in many discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not mention the snowball clause in my answer to Reyk. There is a limit to the level of conciseness that can be achieved. James500 (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: Would anyone object if I was to initiate a snap RfC on the proposal as I originally had it (which I think would have a reasonable chance of passing)? (Bearing in mind that proposals are normally rejected rather than overwritten). James500 (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One process should end before another is started. Let the MfD close first. If it is kept you are welcome to un-do my changes prior to opening an RfC assuming no one else has edited the page. I seriously doubt it will pass since it is trying to claim inherent notability for several things. All you said in the draft is everything listed is notable "unless it violates BLP" which seems to me to be a bunch of empty verbiage since I can not envision, and you have not stated, how creating an article that simply says "John Smith is the Ambassador to Foo from Bar", which is all an article needs to say according to your version of the draft, can possibly violate BLP. J bh  Talk  11:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - We don't delete Wikipedia history in fact. This is valid as a proposal. Otherwise start another one that reflects what everyone wants. But this is not a deletion case.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * this argument provides no rationale for keep. "Don't delete Wikipedia history" is meaningless. As many have pointed this is not valid as a proposal as it did not even reflect long established consensus, for example stating all ambassadors are notable totally ignores a lengthy community discussion months ago on WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ""Don't delete Wikipedia history" is meaningless" is nonsense. MfD has always refused to engage in policy debate.  It means that delete arguments have to establish that the page is not a real proposal.  If this was previously covered at WP:BIO, then it should be redirected to WP:BIO with a link to the previous discussion in the edit summary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have repeatedly pointed out, proposals don't have to reflect existing consensus, as one of their functions is to propose that we agree to a new consensus. The statement that ambassadors are notable did not ignore the discussion at WT:BIO, but was in fact actually based on that discussion. What I took away from that discussion, and the essay WP:DIPLOMAT and its talk page, is that there is a high degree of support, from many editors, that ambassadors are generally notable, partly based on analogy to SOLDIER, their obvious importance, and they level of coverage they normally receive. Even if that proposition has not quite achieved consensus yet (and I am not convinced it that hasn't), it is very near to doing so, and there is a very high degree of probability that it will achieve consensus in the future. In any event, those discussions did not include any RfC. Since normal discussion on any talk page tends to be dominated by a small clique of editors who regularly edit it, an RfC is always likely to produce a different result. We are overdue for an RfC on all of these things (bilateral relations, diplomats, their buildings, treaties and other agreements). If I can't bring one here, there will be four RfCs on different talk pages. A single RfC would be simpler and more convenient, as these issues are connected.
 * A redirect to BIO would be inappropriate, as bilateral relations, embassies and treaties are outside the scope of that page, and were not generally discussed there. As a distinct subject, this is entitled to its own SNG, instead of being confusingly broken up over several pages. James500 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not worry. Libstar and Smokey are just showing muscles. I am not impressed. Their tactics of showing muscles are not very effective. That Libstar is bludgeon every AfD that he is involved in is a tell sign of the users inexperience. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Have we met elsewhere? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes in Havanna in 1989 do you remember?--BabbaQ (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think you have me mistaken. I may be clumsy, but do not habitually show muscles.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - A throwback to old Article Rescue Squad dogma, and needless guideline/rule creep to boot. The WP:GNG is sufficient to cover bilateral relations articles. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The notion that it is a throwback of any kind is an argument in favor of not deleting failed proposals or else we doom future editors to repeat this history. Better to keep and see it tagged failed, if you are right.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) I don't see how this is a throwback to ARS dogma, as I am not a member of the ARS and I don't recall seeing this on any of their project pages (perhaps Tarc, or someone else, could provide a link to a page that evidences the existence of this alleged dogma?). This proposal is largely based on discussions I have participated in or read, at AfD, and on the pages of various policies, guidelines, essays, proposals and projects. It is also obvious common sense. In any event, if the entire ARS have expressed support for this, that is a very good sign, because the likelihood of this becoming a guideline is proportional to the number of editors who support it, and the many members of ARS are no exception. (2) By definition, this page cannot be guideline or rule creep, because a proposal is neither a guideline nor a rule. In any event, the accepted means of dealing with rule creep is demotion (where the old policy or guideline is marked as historical), not deletion. This approach is mandated by our policy on policies and guidelines. (3) GNG is not sufficient to cover articles on any subject. We need SNG for all subjects. (a) GNG is highly subjective, and confers a level of editorial discretion that we cannot realistically assume a sufficient proportion of our editors will be fit to be trusted with. This encyclopedia can edited by anyone, including, at least in theory, persons of low intelligence or inadequate education or knowledge (who can't understand what they are !voting for) and all sorts of cranks, trolls, anti-intellectuals, snobs, bigots, POV warriors, and persons with a nihlistic lust for wanton destruction or some other irrational compulsion to delete as many articles as possible. Participation at AfD is so low that there might be an unacceptably high statistical probability that, every so often, such editors will converge on a particular AfD and produce the wrong outcome. Even amongst the rest of us, participation at AfD is so low that GNG is unlikely to produce thoroughly consistent and correct results, and it doesn't appear to. (b) Because GNG is entirely dependent on the level of coverage, it is, as a proxy for real notability, vulnerable to systematic bias in the sources available. We can expect it to underestimate the notability of topics about history, and especially the distant past (because most writing materials are biodegradable, the absence of printing and other technology, and for the following reasons, since the past was a poorer place) and poor countries (because the people there can't afford to buy as many books, higher rates of illiteracy, and, since there is less incentive to advertise to poor people, lower advertising revenues to support newspapers and other periodicals, news and other websites etc, which typically carry ads in addition to news etc factual content). (4) To summarise, the !vote above contains no valid rationale for deletion. James500 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a breathless agitated rant! Please, read what you've written and try to understand how it sounds to other people. Reyk  YO!  14:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My comments were neither breathless, nor agitated, nor a rant. I was completely calm at the time at the time of writing that post. It would take a lot more than what Tarc wrote to upset me. In fact, compared to all the unpleasant personalised accusations above and below on this page, I thought his comments were essentially benign, though I did not agree with his arguments, and felt the new arguments advanced were sufficiently plausible that they required an answer containing a proper explanation. I suppose that if you were to read that post out loud in a comic shrill voice, it would sound silly, but so would your own posts. I'm afraid that if you think I am agitated or ranting, you are imagining things. Your perception of my emotional state is not reality. It really is all in your head. If you want to appreciate my comments in the vein they were intended, just imagine that I am an emotionless ice man or robot, acting only on logic, who speaks in a monotone voice, which he never raises and which betrays no emotion of any kind whatsoever. Just imagine that you are listening to a machine or a block of ice. That would be much closer to the truth than the notion I was throwing a temper tantrum, screaming and bursting into tears, which I was not. James500 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, yet another rant, this time ranting that the previous rant wasn't a rant. Methinks you doth protest too much. You'd like me to believe you're an emotionless automaton, but the tone and content of your repetitious tirades do not reflect that. What I see is not a robot or a block of ice but spittle flecks going everywhere. Hint: stuff like "cranks, trolls, anti-intellectuals, snobs, bigots, POV warriors, and persons with a nihlistic lust for wanton destruction or some other irrational compulsion to delete as many articles as possible" sounds completely unhinged. Reyk  YO!  17:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I assure you that your perception is erroneous. James500 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but I will back my perception and good judgment over your assurances every day of the week. BTW, learn how to indent properly. Reyk  YO!  17:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON if I ever saw it, watch as James500 does another long winded convoluted response to this again. LibStar (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That essay is nonsense. I've been meaning to write another essay debunking it for some time. James500 (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been on WP several years now and encountered 100s of editors and you meet WP:BLUDGEON, excessive long winded convoluted responses and constant refusal to accept others point of view, continuing arguing and arguing in the magic hope of getting snow keeps. Seriously, people are tiring of it and not reading your long winded text. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The short version of what is wrong with BLUDGEON is, that since consensus is not a vote, and depends on the quality of arguments, we cannot put an arbitrary word limit on discussions, as opposed to forbidding mere repetition, because it would make it impossible to assess consensus, because there is a finite limit to the level of conciseness with which some arguments can be presented. Such a limit would altogether prevent some valid arguments from being moved by anyone, unless the number of participants was huge. BLUDGEON is only an essay and it happens to be incompatible with policy. None of your criticisms of me is accurate an I could throw some of them straight back at you. You, for example, engage in an excessive amount of mere repetition, saying things you have already said once over and over and over again, in a way that contributes nothing to this discussion, seemingly in a bid to shout the other side down. If that isn't BLUDGEON, nothing is. Your answer to this post is sure to repeat your "long winded" remark, for the millionth time, with no new meaningful arguments, something of which I am growing extremely tired and should not have to read. I've also been on Wikipedia several years now and encountered hundreds of editors. So what? How is that relevant? No one with a normal attention span would be tired of my comments, and they are no longer than is absolutely necessary. Even BLUDGEON, in all its extremism, doesn't argue that we have to agree with other people's opinions. I'm not trying to get snow keeps, merely to answer novel arguments/ideas that have not previously been discussed, having not appeared in earlier !votes, and need to be discussed. James500 (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I didn't actually read his response; not at all interested in verbose inclusionist harangues anymore, I had my fill of that years ago. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * agreed Tarc, if there was ever a case study of BLUDGEON, I've now found it after years on Wikipedia. Why would anyone waste their time on James's long winded convoluted excuse ridden off topic verbosity which has zero impact on the outcome? No closing admin would read it. But James always wants to be the last comment. So James can you show some restraint and not respond and not take all the oxygen? LibStar (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you show some restraint and stop making endless personal attacks, to the effect of James is this and James is that and James is the other? If this conversation is going off topic, it because you are the one taking it off topic by attacking me over and over and over again, in a way that has no relevance to the purpose of the MfD. Would you prefer it if, instead of answering your off topic attacks, I was to just collapse them in a box headed "off topic"? I, or someone else, could probably do that under the talk page guidelines. I really think that this entire thread should be collapsed from Reyk's "breathless agitated rant" comment above onwards. James500 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not worry James, Libstar can't help himself. The guy always goes on personal attacks. Just ignore the worst and try to stay on point, there is no point in trying to reason with the person behind the username. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, at least 3 editors have pointed out James's excessive long winded responses that add nothing to the discussion. It's a true case of WP:BLUDGEON. The tactic of James is to consistently use extremely long replies to grind down any opposing view. He'll respond again to this because simply he can't resist. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is why we will never see a topic specific notability standard in this area. 'Include everything' vs 'GNG is good enough' no one wants to get in the crossfire. GNG is what all subject specific notability guidelines should be based on but the definition of 'significant' needs to be addressed for particular topics. We failed with, at least, NPOLITICIAN, NATHELETE and Populated Places and we now have thousands of articles that will never be anything other than stubs. The desire to keep this from happening in the realm of international relations is preventing any progress on providing guidance, even simply codifying the consensus from AfD, on long standing notability issues in the topic area. Someday sanity may reign but this is not the day. I have un-struck my delete above and cited WP:IAR. An RfC has no chance of passing now and a 'snap RFC' of the original draft, as proposed by above will poison the well for any near or medium term attempt, should anyone be foolish enough to try, legitimate proposal. In particular it would head off the discussions on Ambassadorial notability that has been going on for months and smother any potential emerging consensus in a repeat of this charlie foxtrot.  J bh  Talk  19:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like to also direct your attention to Notability (history) and Notability (publishing), created by the same user and used by him in the same way. — Keφr 08:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * interesting pick up. I expect James500 will now do a long rant about why these other proposals are valid. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am starting to see that James500 is prone to writing a lot of mistaken things, too many to spend time addressing, and that his proposals are very badly incomparable with WP:N. He has a right to host these opinions in his userspace, but they should be removed from project space.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, your edit summary is correct. In fact if I had read these other "notability proposals" I would not have even tried to work on this one. I simply can not understand the thought process that led to statements like "In general, the longer a person has been dead, the more likely they are to be notable" . I feel foolish for trying to improve a draft the original author, based on these other "drafts", seems to have had no genuine intention of bringing to RfC. J bh  Talk  11:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The passage in question is based on User:Bearian/Standards, and I have added "A person who died before the year 1450 is notable if their name is known to us" which is basically what he and the other user agreed on, with which I also agree. I have every intention of bringing them to RfC and I will be happy to move immediately to RfC, since I think they will pass in their present form. James500 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "A person who died before the year 1450 is notable if their name is known to us" is by far the most arbitrary and laughable inclusion criteria I have ever encountered, and after dealing with the ARS for years, that is quite an accomplishment. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1450 is the accepted date of the introduction of printing in Europe (what is referred to as the "Gutenberg Era" in Bearian's user essay and the quote from User:Ihcoyc it cites. Surely you know why the introduction of printing is the obvious date? James500 (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

People kept handwritten records before 1450. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Handwritten records are significantly less likely to survive because they are harder to reproduce without printing. The things rot away faster than they can be copied by hand. James500 (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I find such a thought process quite easy to imagine: if you wish to gain more insight into it, you might also want to look at Deletion reform 2015, Proposed deletion review and James500's addition to WP:ATA. However, I think discussing the thought processes of individual editors is not really what WP:MFD is meant for. — Keφr 12:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, the three of you, the teachers at the kindergarten wants their kids back. Please return. Or perhaps act your age. Just a suggestion :)--BabbaQ (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * comment can't see any snow keep here, in fact a growing consensus for delete. But I'm sure there will be some 500 character + response to this. LibStar (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are fishing Libstar... --BabbaQ (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * you're the lone James500 supporter he is fast losing support as a overranting editor. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I find this tangent quite superfluous, to say the least. — Keφr 12:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment- if this is deleted, as it should be, then I recommend MfDing the other two phony notability guidelines as well. All three seem to have been written for the purpose of bolstering James500's case at a handful of AfDs, with the goal of making it look like there's some actual community support for his position. Hey look, there's this proposed guideline called Notability (history). That means it's had community input, lots of discussion, and is up for an RfC to make it official, right? Well, no. What we weren't supposed to notice is that James500 squeezed them out himself just hours previously so that he could cite them at AfD, that nobody else has even looked at them, and that he's just going to abandom them afterwards. If James500 wants to write self-serving nonsense essays he can do that in his user space. This is a deceptive and inappropriate use of Wikipedia space. Reyk  YO!  11:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. J bh  Talk  12:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur as well. It's obvious what James500 agenda is, and he will not stop until he has used every last excuse/deflection possible. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reyk, what you accuse me of is simply not true. I've explained why above. I have tried very hard to assume good faith, but in view of the persistent misrepresentation, and the fact that I know you are strongly deletionist from past AfDs, I can no longer do so. The only motive that I can see is a desire to make sure that an RfC does not happen, to make sure the thing doesn't become a guideline. James500 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Both NHISTORY and NPUBLISHING are ready for RfC. NHISTORY is taken verbatim from an existing guideline, OBK, and is certain to pass. NPUBLISHING is an obvious common sense explanation of GNG, is essentially the same as an existing guideline, AUTHOR, and is likely to pass. If I didn't put them up for RfC immediately, it is because I was hoping for more feedback. In my view the only purpose an MfD on those could serve is to game the system by trying to prevent an RfC that is likely to pass, and the only appropriate course of action is to start both RfCs now. I cannot see how it can be acceptable for a group of strongly deletionist editors, who must know that they are not close to being a representative sample of the community, to seek to prevent an RfC on a proposal because that proposal is strongly at variance with their personal opinions, especially when that proposal is an obvious rehash of existing guidelines (AUTHOR and OBK). I am going to tag them as full proposals now. James500 (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It hardly needs to be said, but both proposals are complete junk. They're obviously not fully developed proposals, my opinion is that they should be summarily rejected, and I have said so on their talk pages. Reyk  YO!  14:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * agree. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, junk. However you have not actually opened and posted an RfC nor have you posted notices for it on proper talk pages like related notability and WikiProject pages nor at the Village Pump. If these have so much support it is now time to advertise the RfCs and get community feedback. Simply changing draft proposal to proposal does nothing and gives the impression those pages have progressed from draft to proposed through input and refinement. This is not the case. Please put them up for RfC properly or they should be returned to draft status and MfD. J bh  Talk  15:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Jbhunley: A little patience, please. It will probably happen in the next twenty four hours; I don't do anything that quickly. I take it that you agree that an immediate RfC is within the rules. They cannot be returned to draft once proposed. A proposer does not require a second. James500 (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If it were my place to make the call I would say they are drafts not proposals. In general I feel that you are simply trying to change the drafts to proposals to avoid MfD. You have done no significant work on them since they were written and have, from what I can see, not made a serious attempt to gain input from other editors. I do not know whether policy is in line with my opinion. J bh  Talk  19:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the guideline for publishers was advertised on the talk page of WikiProject Books. I don't see what more than that you expect me to do. Where else could I seek input, except at AfD itself? Whilst no one from the WikiProject commented, that could be construed as a silent consensus that means "no objections". The work I have done on them is plenty. SNG do not have to be massively long and full to bursting with every deletionist restriction can be dreamt up. Short and simple is always better, and, by way of comparison, AUTHOR and OBK are both very brief. There is no reason why either of these should be significantly longer. To say that I'm just trying to avoid MfD is a bit strange since an MfD on a proposal (including a draft) is an abuse of process. I could just as easily say that you only want to do an MfD to prevent an RfC, to terminate discussion before it starts. James500 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:MFD states "Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors." This proposal is only 10 days old while we generally discuss proposals for 30 days or more and this is the first I've heard of it myself.  This attempt to delete the proposal before it receives full attention from the community is therefore quite improper. Andrew D. (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to join in the discussion then we will have an active proposal. As it stands we had an 'everything is notable' draft written by a single user who seems to have written it simply to quote at AfD. I foolishly tried to improve it to be more in line with current consensus not realizing that would make it 'active' and harder to MfD. As far as I can tell [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(bilateral_relations)&oldid=668985629 this is the version] wants to call a 'snap RfC' (Whatever that is.) on not the current version which I re-wrote.  J bh  Talk  19:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The page in question has only existed for a few days and has been actively edited and discussed in that time. The proposal doesn't cease to be active just because one participant realises that they have been foolish.  This attempt to delete it is disruptive in that it tries to forces the issue by means of an inappropriate process.  It's as if there were an international conference and one party tries to demolish the room while the treaty is being discussed.  See North Korea–United States relations... Andrew D. (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said in my argument for deletion above there really is not a policy based reason to delete it. I have no issue with it being taken through RfC and I would love it if there were actually some input. That is why I attempted to improve it while the MfD is going on . I do, however, feel that the original author has been creating 'draft proposals' simply to cite them at AfD. If they were presented as drafts on various talk pages and input from other editors was being sought when they were created and before they were cited at AfD I would have another opinion. As it stands three 'draft proposals'none of which, until this MfD, were being worked on or 'advertised' strikes me as gaming the system. My opinion on this is, of course, worth exactly what you paid for it. Maybe a bit less. Cheers. J bh  Talk  21:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is quite normal for editors to create or argue for policy which supports their views. LibStar is likewise trying to delete this page because it would undermine his numerous attempts to delete relations articles.  The idea that editors are always disinterested and dispassionate about these things is quite naive.  There's presumably a long history of such nominations at MfD and so that's why WP:MFD now discourages such nominations of policy pages.  This discussion should be closed and the parties can then wrangle over the page in question.  Me, I have better things to do.  Andrew D. (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Truth of the day. It is quite interesting to see how different users bludgeon their opinions to the very end. Some worse than others...--BabbaQ (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * you are trying to keep this article because it would support your attempts to keep bilateral articles when sourcing is poor and the good old WP:PRESERVE card doesn't work. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But LibStar, if Andrew supports my proposal, if he favours it becoming a guideline, that immediately negates your entire argument for deleting it, which is based entirely on an ad hominem directed at me personally. So, if you really believe what you just said, you should now gracefully accept defeat and withdraw your nomination. James500 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As requested above, an RfC has begun at Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing). An RfC on the history proposal will not happen tonight as it is now too far into the early hours of the morning. Don't expect anything before tomorrow night. I'm not sure how well I can concentrate on two simultaneous RfCs.
 * Userfication, suggested above, is one thing that not an option in this MfD. Although I do not want this page deleted, I do not want this page in my user space either, and moving it there would interfere with my right to control the content of my user space. It apparent that it would also be used as a means of denigrating me, if it were placed there. It would also prevent further editing and improvement by others. James500 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * my nomination stands and will not be withdrawn. Let's see if you will continue to dominate this discussion. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To both James and Libstar, how would it be if you both stopped bickering like kids. It is embarrassing to witness. You both keep the fighting going by giving each other small but obvious insults. Non of you can decide how this AfD will end, and your bickering will obviously be overlooked by the closing admin. If anything, James, please stop taking the bait. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * BabbaQ, I think you are right. I apologise for taking the bait. James500 (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

babbaQ, I thought you didn't want to interact with me anymore... I guess you can't help yourself. Regards LibStar (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you and James keep using a AfD that I am involved in as your personal playground... I guess you can't help yourself. As usual. I will take my own advice to heart and not take your bait :) Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You just replied QED. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You just can't help yourself :) Lol.. you are hilarious. Now keep bickering with James so you get your daily dose of fights :) You are so inexperienced when it comes to Wikipedia... that you are allowed access to AfDs are beyond me :) Bammmm! --BabbaQ (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This one is my all time favourite bs comment from you. It shows how you only want to provoke people and has no end to how low you can sink to get that precious reaction...it must be difficult feeling insecure and knowing that your skills as a Wikipedia editor is below par. I see overall your edits and your AfDs are really flawed. The inexperience and the total contempt of Wikipedia from you shines through. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Many AfDs I nominate result in deletion. Remember that time you said keep per admin . And all the admin do is relist the AfD! You have a track record of poor reasoning in afds, and failing to provide sources even when asked by 3 editors LibStar (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is your standard line, "remember the time you said keep per admin". Then I say, remember the time you insisted that Murder of Joanna Yeates would never go anywhere and should be deleted. Today it is FA article. You have a track record of being a deletionist even in the most obvious keep cases.. and pointy comments towards anyone having a different opinion than yourself.. so what is your point really. You contact me on my talk page and at an AfD. And then you complain about me wanting to contact you. Come on Libstar.... stop baiting. Cheerio. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

despite others warning you for your personal attacks on me and telling James500 not to respond and ignore me, what do you continue to do? Keep on responding. Happy to pretend to be a friend to others and dish out advice but you hardly practice what you preach. I'll tell you not to respond but you can't resist. Let's see if you stop now. LibStar (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

*Delete. I may give LibStar another barnstar for his continued work on ferreting out these absurd Xcountry-Ycountry articles that are just filling space. A fake guideline, posted to live space without any sort of consensus is not only contrary to the process, it muddies the waters of the AfD process. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) This is not a fake guideline. It could not possibly be called one as it is not marked as a guideline. It is not marked with Template:Guideline. It is presently marked as a draft proposal. Nor is it a fake anything else. (2) The policy on proposals makes it very clear that a proposal or draft proposal requires no consensus whatsoever to merely to be included in the project namespace. There is no such process as you allege. It would be wholly inappropriate for it to be in the userspace because that would prevent other editors working on it. (3) Several people support the continued inclusion of the draft proposal in the project namespace, so we now have all the consensus we could want. (4) This could not possibly muddy the waters at AfD unless participants have lost the ability to read and don't know what the words "draft" and "proposal" mean. Anyone who does not know what a draft proposal is, and how it is different from a guideline lacks the competence necessary to contribute at AfD and should not be editing there. (5) There is already strong consensus that Xcountry-Ycountry articles are not absurd or filling out space, and our personal feelings on that are not a valid grounds for deleting a proposal. James500 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and clearly mark as draft, proposal or failed proposal. Worst case, userify. I don't think it's relevant to comment on the merits of the proposal or James500's possible ulterior motives for creating it. The fact of the matter is that it's a draft or proposal that has had good faith discussion on its talk page. That can and should be used as a starting point for considering another draft in the future. That's the reason we typically keep archives of good faith discussions. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, comments on ulterior motives and "history of James500" is irrelevant. One of the best points made in a while here. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – WP:MFD states "Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page." The page's talk page has received relatively recent input. Mark accordingly after discussion results in some form of consensus, and if not, mark as historical. North America1000 14:56, 17 July 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.