User talk:LibStar/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Bilateral relations articles

Just wondering on some of these if simply redirecting and WP:Merge wouldn't make more sense and draw more eyes to the ones that do deserve AfD as they are borderline. It seems like we're abusing AfD when there are hundreds of these articles. Do we really need to clog AfD? -- Banjeboi 08:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I support that, but there is a process to follow. Over the last few months I arbitrarily merged a great many of the trivial stubs into the "Foreign relations of ..." articles, trying to reduce the number of these AfD debates. I assumed that most would stay merged, but with a few some editor would see the makings of an article, revert the merge and expand. Good luck to them. However, merging without discussion is only allowed if there is no reason to think it is controversial. Several editors have objected to what I was doing, so it is controversial. Given that, you would have to work through the remaining stubs posting a {{mergeto|Foreign relations of X}} suggestion on each of them, wait a couple of weeks and then go ahead and merge the ones with no objections. That should be o.k., and would avoid these endless debates with the same arguments for and against keeping the stubs being repeated over and over again ad nauseum. Of course, where an editor objected to a merge but did nothing to improve the article, send it to AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue, IMHO, is that the heat in the associated AfDs is repellant to those editors who would likely most be able to render a neutral assessment. Meanwhile having 10-20 at AfD at once with the same editors looking to work on them degrades from meaningful improvement to the ones most likely deserving of their own article. Perhaps a working group to do assessments of bilateral relationship articles starting with stubbiest would make sense - run a bot every day or so and produce a working list in order of actual content volume. This would quickly suss out the low hanging fruit that are likely merge targets. If an article has but two sentences, and a thoughtful source search turns up nothing, I fail to see why running it through AfD makes any sense per WP:Snow. Also the main list articles for these could more readily employ onger footnotes so that relevant information isn't "lost" but simply sent to a footnote so those who seek it still have it available. -- Banjeboi 22:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I understand both your viewpoints there has been concerted effort to even rescue some of the exceedingly non notable pairings, and basically insert any trivia with country X and Y mentioned, I've even seen an attempt to add sporting results. so it isn't as simple as the least notable resulting in WP:SNOW. I'd like to think that. I don't mind merging content even if it isn't redirected. I'm not the biggest fan of redirect as these are such unlikely search terms unless someone is familiar with bilateral on WP...and in any case you could visit Foreign relations of X. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• These AfD debates may seem to be a huge waste of time, but I wonder how many of the editors expressing passionate opinions are actually interested in contributing material. The AfD's are stimulating expansion efforts, many of which survive, some silly. The editors working on them could perhaps do more useful stuff, but they may need the AfD challenge to get started. A few articles that have potential may be deleted, but if they really are important there is nothing to stop an editor re-creating the articles. The overall bilateral relations area has huge gaps such as Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda relations and some really awful articles like Honduras – United States relations. I am inclined to leave the AfD process running, ignore it, and work on adding and improving content. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Need opinion

For months I have been trying to redirect/merge or even delete a huge amount of non-notable elementary school articles that rely only on primary or trivial sources. But during this time my efforts have been ignored and I need advice on how to move forward. Figuring these bilateral relations articles are quite similar to the elementary school articles I figured you might have some ideas on how to approach this. For example see School District 35 Langley their are approximately 26 non-notable 1-2 sentence articles on elementary and middle schools. But it gets worse the creator of those articles decided to create articles on every elementary school in British Columbia, Canada. I have it estimated at more than 500 non-notable school articles that this guy created.

I might be a slight inclusionist (as you well know) but these articles are complete utter crap if I may say so myself, so how would you go about dealing with this problem afd, merge or redirect. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 00:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I probably will group afd the ones that may cause controversy, but right now I have decided to redirect all the complete wastes of time and then afd the leftovers. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Society for Irish Latin American Studies

Hello LibStar, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Society for Irish Latin American Studies - a page you tagged - because: clearly has context and having no coverage is not a speedy deletion criterion, use WP:AFD instead. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 11:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Mightnt agree with some stuff - but hey youre doing well - keep up the good work and hope you get rewarded for sheer dogged persistence - wish we had more of your type around! cheers SatuSuro 05:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Credit needs to be made where someone can unravel the idiocies of some and to build the more obvious rescuable ones SatuSuro 10:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania–Singapore relations (2nd nomination)

If you are going to be renominating pages for deletion that were only discussed and kept a few months ago, it would be civil to notify all the participants of the previous debates. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just in response to your previous comment: if there is a procedure that has been established on wikipedia then I think it should be observed. It appears to be that both procedurally and substantively this article should be kept.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I think that there are valid reasons for renominating an article for deletion. For example, when reasons for deletion were not addressed in the first debate. And when the first Afd was obviously wrong but not taken to deletion review. Neither are the case here. There are numerous reasons to think the first Afd was correct (multiple keep votes, multiple sources providing notability) and no new issue besides notability has been raised.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Society of Hospital Medicine

Hi Libstar. I wanted to thank you for visiting our page today and hope that would revisit and reconsider removing your citation tag on the History section. I had 2 citations already and added a 3rd. Please advise if there was anything else you wanted cited...sincerely, Docbb1 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Section now has 4 citations. If you do not have any additional issues or specific areas you want cited, i will remove the citation tag as i feel things are pretty well cited. We will continue to build upon this article...Docbb1 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your well reasoned week keep vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination), you have shown courage in the face of group think. Bravo. Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

X-Y relations commenting on !votes moratorium.

I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others peoples !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [1]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this here. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations

I actually think that these articles should be considered inherently notable. However, we haven't reached that consensus as a matter of policy so I've refrained from making that argument on the Afds where the normal version of notability hasn't been established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree. The basic rules are clear and simple, working well, easy to understand, good enough. Let's see what kind of repository of knowledge we can build within these rules. This type of article is just one tiny category. "Inherently notable" opens a Pandora's box of special rules for soccer teams, insects, bus routes and everything else under the sun. If there are no independent sources that discuss the subject, well, there are many other subjects that deserve attention.

I have been plowing through all the "Foreign relations of..." and "X-Y relations" articles trying to do a basic clean-up job, and am depressed by the extremely poor quality and huge gaps I find. Many of the "X-United States relations" articles are just dumps from the US State department, pompous and totally one-sided. There is soap-box content from Kosovo and Armenia throughout. Some of the "X-Russia relations" articles have no content at all - none. And the poorer countries, particularly in Africa, are more likely to have content about their relationship with Finland or Serbia than about the neighbor with whom they are at war. A mess. A lot of crap.

Just venting off... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And I was just thinking about a place to put this image ... :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lithuania–Sweden relations

The article Lithuania–Sweden relations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Very short article which is essentially just an obvious definition and links to other articles.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I added a map. Are you going to do a section on history? The two countries had a lot of interactions over the years. E.g. Deluge (history). I know you like to focus on current official and economic relations, but think historical relations are also interesting and guess that other readers would too. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Germany Slovakia done. I can do more of these any time - just takes a few minutes. Different topic, if everything were cleaned up, I would like to have the "Foreign relations of ..." articles simply reproduce the first paragraph of each associated "X-Y relations" article. Ideally, that means the first paragraph gives a short overview of the X-Y article, no more than 3-4 lines, and includes 2-3 key references. I think that would be best practice. The reader can skim through the Foreign relations article getting a very short overview of each X-Y relation, then click for more detail if they are interested. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

92.3.126.124

This user is making up fake regions, I have contacted one admin (User:Dougweller) regarding the IP's actions so far. This IP seems to be a mutual annoyance. I am hoping we can work together on getting this IP to stop vandalizing

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Carl-Fredrik Algernon

A belated comment regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl-Fredrik Algernon. I suppose that my choice of words to comment the AfD may have been unnecessarily harsh. I regularly check out Article alerts listed for WP:SWEDEN, which is how I saw this AfD. From my experience, when the AfD "hits" a well-known name, rather than a non-notable artist or sports personality, the reason is typically that the article is just a short stub. When I checked Algernon's article, this was not the case, so the AfD surprised me. Despite this, please read the words of my comment as "but the article clearly states his relevance!", which would have been a better choice of words on my part in this case. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)