Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mongolia–Norway relations

Moved from AFD

 * Personally, I think that anybody who thinks Vanuatu–Ecuador relations isn't a notable topic is a troll and a vandal who is ignorant and just wants to censor important facts from Wikipedia and I will be writing to the press, and Jimbo Wales, and I will be suing you all for infringing my freedom of speech if you argue that Vanuatu–Ecuador relations isn't notable. (Yes, I agree with you 100%, SnottyWong!) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  constabulary  ─╢ 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Be careful around TT when he starts in the sarcasm mode, remember I had over 300 images I loaded to Wikipedia and Wiki Commons nominated for deletion as retaliation last time he went into the sarcasm mode. He spent hours meticulously nominating every image I loaded in Wiki Commons and even my photo of myself on my user page. He even nominated a picture of some random guy that I adjusted the color of and reloaded. I guess he nominated everything that my name was attached to. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At least you're not bitter... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  CANUKUS  ─╢ 21:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet we have Foreign relations of Vanuatu, if there was enough information, each pair would get their own article, but there isn't enough information for a standalone article for each pair. His strategy is to nominate everything, and maybe something will stick. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And there isn't enough information for the pair this discussion is about, in my opinion, and in the opinions of the several others who would also like to see it deleted. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  without portfolio  ─╢ 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Troll and vandal no. But ignorant and that just wants to make the encyclopedia poorer by making important facts difficult to find for the public, yes, agree. Without sarcasm. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So everyone who's arguing for a select few bilateral relations articles to be deleted are "ignorant and that just [want] to make the encyclopedia poorer" – I didn't notice the consensus to waive WP:NPA on this page, but whatever floats your boat... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  presiding officer  ─╢ 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You started by making quite silly sarcasm against the keep opinions. Don't complain if it gets back at you . No personal attack meant but yes, I happen to think that who wants do delete bilateral articles is ignorant in the technical meaning of the term: he/she ignores that it is a completely encyclopedic topic and that we are not here to follow notability guidelines for the guidelines's sake, but we are here to inform the public on verifiable and important subjects. The notability guidelines are here to avoid having us to cover obviously non-notable subjects like your next MySpace garage band, not to became an excuse to exclude whatever sounds a bit odd. The status of relationships between two sovereign countries strikes me as an obviously notable subject for an encyclopedia, something that oughts to be covered whenever we have some RS to draw information about, even in cases where the relationship is not an obviously fundamental ones: like we cover small towns and not only big cities, rare odd species and not only zoo animals, etc. He/she is ignorant in having a small-world perspective, in which what is "notable" misleadingly is interpreted as "everyone knows it". And even worse, they want to make other people ignorant, in removing information. This definition fits well enough: people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come. (see ). -- Cycl o pia talk  18:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Second thread moved from AfD
Here is the original context Yilloslime T C  19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * DOnt see any reason to even why this article was put up for deletion in the first place. strange.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you? What was confusing about the eleven twelve arugments to delete the page? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  directorate  ─╢ 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I could say dito about the comments saying Keep.?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you couldn't. I can see the reasoning behind the "keep" arguments; I just disagree with it and feel that the case to delete is stronger. You said that you dOnt [sic] see any reason to even why [sic] this article was put up for deletion in the first place – not the same thing at all. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  presiding officer  ─╢ 16:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually i dont honestly understand how you mean. You wrote "I just disagree with it" meaning that you dont see any reason to change your stance. Still you want me to explain my position,even tough we are of the same opinion just on opposit sides. Strange. Need some more explanation,.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. In short, I see that there are points on both sides – there are some reasons to keep the article (every diplomatic relationship affects a lot of people; there are some acceptable sources used), but, having weighed up the balance, I feel that there are more reasons to delete the article (the relationship itself is only tangentially mentioned in the sources; a couple of minor state visits aren't enough).
 * What you said, though, was: "DOnt [sic] see any reason to even why [sic] this article was put up for deletion in the first place." That suggests that you don't see any merit on one side of the argument. And I was just wondering why not? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  directorate  ─╢ 16:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because their is perhaps more people at this moment saying Delete doesnt mean that the Delete opinions are more strong than the Keep sayers.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find I never said that. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  directorate  ─╢ 16:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Im not going to continue this meta-discussion, people have different opinions and just because I have a different opinion than the Delete crowd doesnt mean that i should stand trial having to explain some small grammatical difference. Neither should anyone thinking this article should stay on. Fact.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you don't get my point. What a pity. ...stand trial having to explain some small grammatical difference. Neither should anyone thinking this article should stay on. Well, I'll certainly concede on the 'grammar' point... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  First Secretary of State  ─╢ 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What i mean is that i dont think you would have questioned me had I said delete. Which i will never say about this particular article.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, of course I wouldn't have questioned you if you'd !voted to delete. Why would I? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  First Secretary of State  ─╢ 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. Its no point in keeping this particular discussion alive. Neither side is willing to listen to the other.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What case do you rest, exactly? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  duumvirate  ─╢ 16:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There should always be a mutual understanding between users. Sutch as not questoning keep or delete votes just because you might not agree with it. Atleast not on the basis of small Grammatical matters.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not a grammatical matter. It was a matter of the substance of your ridiculous so-called point – but as you wish. I shan't be engaging further with you on this issue. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  prorogation  ─╢ 16:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All i have to say as a last comment is OMG.:)--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that was enlightening. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Tellers' wands  ─╢ 17:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah wasnt it.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)