Talk:Bangladesh–Rwanda relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability and synthesis[edit]

Despite the unverified assertions and personal attacks against the nominator in the most recent AFD, the article remains a mess of synthesis. The suggestion that a couple of disparate events (that wouldn't meet the requirements of WP:EVENT) should be glued together to make a notable whole is plainly non-policy. The addition of non-assertions ("there is not bilateral agreement" and "these two countries are both part of broad groups with dozens of others") doesn't make this subject any more notable. The "keep" arguments at AFD prevailed because they played the man rather than the ball. St★lwart111 23:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your rage tags, these issues were settled at the AFD. Keep taking it to AFD until you get the outcome you want. Eventually you will get it deleted. The beauty of deletion is that no one will ever see the article again, and though we all agree that consensus can change, it can only change if people look at the article. Once deleted no one looks at it again. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't "rage tags", I didn't take it to AFD, and your removal of those tags was inappropriate. The discussion at AFD was trending toward "merge" anyway and the closer closed it rather than actually considering the content of the discussion. That's a matter for him, but it doesn't change the facts, nor my legitimate concern about them. I have no particular desire to see it deleted for the sake of deleting it and have created a number of similar articles in the past. While I agreed with the nominator in this instance, there are plenty of occasions where he and I have disagreed and we have remained frequent participants in bilateral relations AFDs since a collective effort a couple of years ago to remove a bunch of COI promo-spam. Again, I haven't nominated it once so the suggestion that I "keep taking it to AFD" is spurious ad-hom. St★lwart111 06:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored that they do not have any current bilateral treaties. Like Sherlock Holmes in the Silver Blaze story, sometimes the absence of something is important. This is not something random like the absence of a hockey team, it is the basis of most diplomatic articles. I also removed the rage tags again. The notability was upheld at the AFD. I am sorry it still sticks in your craw that you find it not notable, but the notability was addressed at the AFD. I understand the rage you feel, why don't you guys give it a rest and nominate a third time in a few months, instead of the death by 1,000 cuts approach. I am sure if you keep at it you can get it deleted. Persistence usually wins at deletions. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have no right to remove legitimate tags from articles, especially given you seem to have no interest in discussing the issues. You clearly didn't look at who you were addressing your comments to, shot from the hip and now you're doubling-down in an effort to shout away dissent. Nice try. Again, there is no "rage". There is, however, a long term and collegial effort to up-merge diplomati-stubs to ensure that bilateral relations are covered appropriately without hundreds of articles covering the minutiae of global diplomacy (including individual signs on doors, offices within offices within offices and synthesised relationships). It is equal part creation and deletion, as evidenced by those articles I've created and those I've fought to save. Childishly lumping "you guys" into a group doesn't make your commentary any less oafish or ill-thought-through. St★lwart111 06:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is when it's directed at the wrong target because you didn't take the time to read things thoroughly. St★lwart111 06:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One data point is not a trend in mathematics, even if it is the last data point. "You guys" is a term to address the two people who made changes consecutively. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, so I don't understand why you referred to one thing I've never done, suggested I'd do it again and called it mathematics. You now seem to be arguing with yourself. They weren't the same changes, they weren't at the same time and I think you know you've made yourself look incredibly foolish. St★lwart111 06:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conversation isn't always about you, I am addressing more than one person. "Consecutively" is not a synonym for "at the same time". Consecutive events occur one after the other, not at the same time. I'm not really following your logic, can you restate it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't consecutive - your edit came between them, as did your first confused comment here (crediting me with another editor's actions). You tried to clumsily lump the two matters together in your second comment. The same misdirection/misinformation occurred at AFD. The second matter is now, quite rightly, the subject of its own thread. St★lwart111 08:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2015 Rwanda and Bangadesh do not have any bilateral treaties with one another[edit]

Why is this sentence even required. It is no different from having a citation that a town does not have a hospital or airport. It is really scraping the barrel to add such content to pad out an article. perhaps users should put on their user page. User X is not a doctor, solider, policeman, nurse. I can't deduce this looking at user pages. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except the absence of a standard diplomatic milestone is not the same as random infrastructure in a city. We also include that they have no resident ambassadors. Take it to the standard third opinion route and see what other people think. This is an almanac type entry, people are looking for what the countries have and do not have diplomatically. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
airports and hospitals are not random infrastructure but signs of a town's level of development. Are you now going to add absence of agreements to all bilaterals where it applies. I feel it is more a desperate bid to pad articles rather than focus on evidence of actual relations. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you should also reference a lack of state visits. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two countries also do not have joint military operations, a free trade agreement, ongoing cultural or literary relations, religious ties or anything resembling a notable relationship like those other articles where such a notable relationship has been substantiated and verified. We should mention that too. St★lwart111 06:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of migration, needs to be added and cited too. We could really pad out this article with a lot of lack of. I remember Richard norton really opposed Estonia-Luxembourg being deleted. to think we could have a 20 sentence article based on what they don't have! LibStar (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is a milestone in an actor's career to get an academy award. Richard, could you please to add to every actor who has an article if they haven't won an academy award. This information is useful and adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to wade into what's looking like an edit war in the brewing; but I added that statement to begin with because I felt it was important to note that they don't have any bilateral treaties with one another to avoid giving the impression that their relationship is more formalized than it is. From my research and from the sources cited in the article, this is still a very informal relationship in its infancy. Noting that, although there have been talks, there are no treaties, avoids creating misconceptions among readers. (which is also why I used the word "notably" - I was not trying to assert the WP:notability of the relationship, I was trying to emphasize the importance of the fact that the relationship between the two countries is informal. Make sense? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's padding at best, you don't need to state the lack of agreements in bilaterals for reasons stated above. LibStar (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on this topic is decided[edit]

As everyone should note, notability of this topic is decided, it has passed Articles for Deletion twice. Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you feel something was wrongly decided here, Deletion Review is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first AFD was closed by a non-admin on the basis of unchallenged opinions that have since been comprehensively debunked. The second was disrupted by plainly silly suggestions that nominating something 12 months after an initial nomination was disruptive. Then by baseless attacks on the nominator (your own). Then by efforts to deliberately misinform the debate with clearly factually incorrect arguments on which others based uninformed "per x" opinions. The keep crowd did an excellent job of shifting the goal-posts and playing the man instead of the ball. Rather than re-listing something for which there were three possible outcomes, the closer closed it with what he had. The fault lies with the participants, not the closer, so DRV would be a pointless exercise. The only "disruption" here is the attempt to road-block further discussion with straw man nonsense. As I said on your talk page, Tim, I expected better from you. St★lwart111 11:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised Carrite didn't use the imaginary criterion that since Bangladesh has more than 150 million it therefore has automatic notability with other nations. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The community has spoken and the war was lost -- twice -- during the past year. The community consensus is that the article meets the Wikipedia notability standard. Instead of accepting consensus, the same two editors who are the only ones to challenge this consensus are fighting the same battle in the same article all over again. If there are issues with the AfDs and/or the manner in which either of them was closed, take it to WP:DRV and make your case. Raising this all over again to refight the war that's already been lost appears plainly disruptive. Alansohn (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An effort to discuss this amicably is being disrupted by the same two editors who disrupted the AFD. We've not challenged the consensus, we're being prevented from raising entirely different issues. The DRV red-herring is a lovely side-track and talk of "wars" and "battle" is unhelpful. St★lwart111 20:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bangladesh–Rwanda relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladesh–Rwanda_relations&oldid=1190496560"