Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists

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 drama-killing keep - If there are further problems, it will come from the conduct of the user and not the content of his sub-pages. Sleeping dog, let it lie. --Xavexgoem (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists[edit]

Attack page in userspace, used to cast aspersions on other editors. No encyclopedic function. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to collect and collate data for an ANI if I am restricted from collecting data onto a page? It seems like a pre-emptive strike to keep me from collecting data to file the ANI. I have to admit it is a very clever parliamentary move. Characterizing it as a hate list based on an amusing name is just silly. In law we call it a preventive injunction. It is a great legal tactic. I have to admit I admire this case for deletion from a tactical standpoint. It is very clever. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of ANI posting would include this data? Stifle (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you're planning to do with this list, don't you have a computer hard drive, or an e-mail inbox, or a flash drive, or some other means of storing the information? Surely Wikipedia isn't the only venue where you can do this. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not breaking any Wikipedia rule by preparing an ANI in Wikipedia space. But from a strategic standpoint, perhaps it would have been more clever to watch me prepare it without letting on. As an analogy, imagine the advantage to a defense attorney seeing a prosecutor build a case before it was presented to a court. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton, I asked you on June 6 what the page was for, and you ignored me and other editors and went on with other business. You had several days' time during which you could have said "this page is for an RFC/ANI/whatever I'm preparing", but you ignored repeated questions. Now that the MfD is open you suddenly have something to say? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that the editor has been frequent disagreement with the editors listed, I see no purpose of this page except to deride them consistent with WP:NPA. such lists breach the spirit of cooperation of Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename at the very least. Noting, studying, and trying to understand your opposition debaters is good. Attacks, including sarcasm, is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The rename indicates the user is prepared to respond to concerns. The new name is more innocuous than I would have asked. The page should say, in unemotive terms, what sort of incidents they are. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep educational about the attitude and thought processes of this editor. Says more about him than it does about anybody else.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per SmokeyJoe. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serves no constructive purpose, just a shitlist of editors that Richard Arthur Norton doesn't like. I've seen other users with such lists be asked to get rid of them in the past. Just FYI, I left Richard Arthur Norton two messages asking him to clarify what this page is, because I figured I should talk to him before coming to MfD...he ignored both messages, though. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Rjanag. Richard Arthur Norton seems a very hellbent editor who would keep an article on my left big toenail, and this seems to be a (s)hit list. I have no idea why so many editors say "to hell with notability" when that's clearly not what we should be thinking. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question How is this an attack page? Serious question, as I'm missing the attack part (thought it clearly is a list of people he's had issues with). That said, it serves no obvious encyclopedic function and he hasn't responded to questions about how it might, so I'd have to favor deletion at this point even given the page move. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument would be he's labelling people "deletionists" which is a highly polarizing, innacurate and in his world view an extremely negative thing to be (never mind that it's a made up category for people who simply have higher standards of "encyclopedically notable" than he does). It's hard to see it as anything but an attack, albiet a childish one. My own argument is to keep it, since i don't really care about childish name-calling and it's useful evidence of this editors over-all battlefield demeanor.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence will still be around, in this discussion and in Norton's talk page. As for why it's an attack page...regardless of what the title is and how he labels people, the fact is that he's keeping a list of people he doesn't like, which cannot serve a constructive purpose. He's free to keep any list he wants, but do it off-wiki. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I personally don't have a problem with this, and I agree with DGG, but I guess there is no reason to keep it either as it serves no encyclopedic purpose that I can see and the creator hasn't explained it. eh. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rjanag. We now have a reason for the page (ANI report). Hobit (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is basically a personal squabble between RAN and Bali, (see Bali's current user p.) and I'd much rather they kept it in user space instead of their more customary venues. Harmless. I suppose if someone objects they've been mischaracterized, RAN would remove them. I note the title has been changed, though. DGG (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this a very un-civil way of expressing one's disagreements with certain editors, I am offended by this list because I was not included on it. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hitlist/attack page. Them From Space 23:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists and User:Bali ultimate, which links to the former and contains a section essentially mocking other editors, as well as User:Themfromspace/draft per Wikipedia:User page and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Editors may not use their userspace to disparage and mock other editors. The only times in which it is okay to comment on fellow editors in userspace is in a complimentary manner as I do with User:A_Nobody#Words_of_wisdom_written_by_wise_Wikipedians and User:A Nobody/Featured editors. Mature adults do not use their userpages to poke fun at perceived opponents. It is litterally as simple as that and we are here to build an encyclopedia, not pages that enflame and perpetuate disputes. With that said, I share Richard Arthur Norton's (RAN's) general frustration with regards to the bilateral AfDs and DRVs as I have twice now seen in such discussions participants fail to identify countries that were colonies of France, which comes up in even simple Google searches. Thus, those saying to delete these articles under the untrue claim of "not even a colony" are either 1) not actually looking for sources; 2) do not know how to look for sources; or 3) just lying because they don't like these articles and are indiscriminately saying to delete practically all of them, while, by contrast, RAN is perhaps doing the most or at least close to it to actually find sources and improve these articles. I would therefore support a topic ban from bilateral AfDs of some of these he mentions who have say frivolously DRVed or renominated in less than a couple months bilateral articles that closed as keep or who have hyperbole edit summaries like "kill with fire", rapid fire copy and paste WP:JNN style-deletes, or who have made blatantly false claims as with not realizing countries were French colonies that demonstrate lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My page is getting ready for a RFC/U. I'm setting it up on the mainspace so as to keep all my activities out in the open. I do not believe it violates any policies and I believe it to be an appropriate use of my userspace. It's there to help solve this drama, not escalate it. Them From Space 00:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point? He was blocked for 72 days. Editors should be reaching out to each other and helping each other improve content. It would be yet more time doing something other than building articles. It is bad enough we are becoming an encyclopedia of AfDs, MfDs, RfCs, DRVs, etc. rather than articles as is. I am increasingly wondering what the ratio is of Wikipedia space versus Mainspace. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something on the order of 1:3. --Izno (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try 72 reduced to 15 days ... "self imposed blocks" are removable at will, and certainly this one was. Collect (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep as it does not violate policy and rename Editors who make me work to improve Wikipedia, as it's just a list of editors who make the user work to improve the project, and the only thing that might even be considered remotely (and amusingly) incivil is the name... and it should not glorify any one as being particularly "extraordinary". Period. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Editor has moved the page, but I think it was moved to a title that could be conceived of as worse. --Izno (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still an "attack page" by any measure. New title is misleading as ti links to nothing at AN/I, but does link to individual user pages, and there is no reason to link to user pages except to keep a list of editors for some purpose. Coupled with links to deletion discussions and one need not be a rocket scientist to state that it is tll an "attack page." Collect (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attack page serving no purpose. I've seen lists of wiki-friends, but this is essentially an enemies' list, and has no place here, where we try to work in a collegial environment. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page is a minor part of a pattern of behavior that should be addressed. I am much more concerned with his apparent disregard for consensus shown by actions such as the multiple copy & pasted deletion review requests he made without first discussing them with the closing administrator. Drawn Some (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - note The DRV thing seems to have been an honest misunderstanding of how deletion review works; Richard already apologized on his talk page a day or two ago for it. You are correct, though, that this userpage appears to be part of a broader trend on this editor's part. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the multiple copy and paste comments in those bilateral AfDs by accounts who are not helping to improve the articles under discussion thereby presenting a false consensus? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is exactly the type of para-logism that I for one have grown tired of having to deal with: like a bunch of other users, A Nobody has a priori decided that there is no way anybody can object to "those bilateral" articles having been created, even though tens of users have by now indicated, in several ways, using ample arguments, why this is the case. When confronted with these replies, said editors go into "I can't hear you" mode, and repeatedly claim that the only thing that can be done to the article up for AfD is "improvement". It's sacred, it's taboo. What's more, the users they brand "deletionists" have repeatedly and independently pointed out that the said "improvements"/"rescues" (needlessly advertised with large banners pasted all over discussion pages and the articles themselves) only add to the problem, since they pile up trivia from just about any context mentioning two countries together, through a process of WP:SYNTH. While admittedly the similarity of these articles and corresponding "rescues" will invariably result in monotonous AfD posts (what else/what more could be said?), it's interesting to note that the "keep" votes and the arguments supporting them are almost always identical or highly repetitive. At the end of this process, I and other users have to deal with being told not just that our opinions are irrelevant, because God himself has decided the articles should be kept, but also that we are under suspicion for having those opinions. At this point, even the notion of "rescuing" an article is treated as synonymous with rescuing it "from us". Dahn (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - These self-appointed policemen of these articles who supply no credentials of actually having any real knowledge of the subjects under discussion is what concerns me. Twice now I have seen deletion discussions in which not only did the accounts fail to acknowledge countries were former French colonies, but some even outright falsely asserted "not even a colony" when it takes all of seconds on a Google search to find the truth out. Such accounts cannot possibly know what they are talking about, or are just lying. There's no other possibile explanation. Napoleon said, "There are people who really believe in their talent to govern simply because they are governing." Well, simply mass nominating bilateral relations articles for deletion and copying and pasting across multiple discussions to delete them does not somehow equal actual expertise of these subjects, because if it did, the accounts in question would have correctly identified that the two countries were indeed former colonies as even a regular Google search would have revealed, but they did not. Instead, they just dig in and antagonistically keep trying to delete them and take them to DRV, but mock Richard Arthur Norton when he takes some to DRV, they demand Docu be desysopped for daring to keep any of them and say someone else who closed as delete was supported by "the hand of God"!? And ultimately why, why would we rather be the Free Encyclopedia of Articles for deletion and Deletion reviews rather than the Free Encyclopedia of Articles that obviously some editors do think worthwhile? How are we better off keeping public discussions in which accounts declare that Tobago was never a colony of France, even though it was several times over the span of three centuries? How are we better off having copy and paste "kill with fire" edit summaries in AfDs? If we were really concerned about the general public taking us seriously as mature academics, we would not humor such blatant factual error-laden arguments, such hyperbole, sarcastic fake keeps, etc. in place of subjects that are indeed relevant to someone. And perhaps if these accounts joined in the effort to actually improve this content or whatever content they do have knowledge on, maybe our articles would actually improve. But instead we are just expanding our coverage on discussions among Wikipedians, which I guess at least amuses bloggers and those studying internet culture. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I fail to see what part of that reply addresses my point, but note that the diversity of "delete" replies quoted there renders spurious the claim according to which you're dealing with "multiple copy and paste comments". My point was exactly that calling "to improve" those articles boasts that, once created, they can always be "rescued" (whatever that means) and never deleted - aside from the annoyance it poses by automatically downgrading any other argument, it actually closes the possibility of discussion. I for one have stopped participating in the centralized discussion when confronted with the exact same circular argument and endless comments about how not being (supposedly) aware of some factoid disqualifies a user from assessing the overall merit of an article. Exactly the case about the Tobago fallacy, where we are all supposed to assume that some historical fact necessarily validates the existence of an article which is, and is destined to remain, a format mess of a rant whose only purpose is to make itself look important. And, btw, being able to copy-paste a caption from google books (the only source for that colonization which, in all, covers a sentence, and is copied within the citation down to the limit of content availability) is anything but the work "mature academics" or "content [editors] do have knowledge on" - and it is just a sample of the grotesque and amateurish "sourcing" that comes with these articles and the "rescue" attempts. In normal circumstances, trying to present that as "research" even on a high school paper is likely to result in a failing grade. If it's still not clear: This and most of the details in that article are bundled together by an editorial voice to create an ad-hoc topic, and this is what is being disputed. Regardless of whether or not France owned Tobago for a while some 300 years ago, when neither state existed in its current form. So please. Dahn (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There are diverse copy and pastes deletes because they are copy and pasted by the same block of accounts in these discussions along with some dishonest deletes along with some deletes that just do not make any logical sense. Anything that is not a hoax can indeed generally be improved. No serious academic or encyclopedist would trivialize coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources of France's colonial experience with Tobago over the span of several years. Any teacher who would fail such research would likely be fired anyway, because no one with any even remote knowledge on bilateral relations would take issue with what is covered in multiple published books that sustains such a lasting legacy. I commend Richard Arthur Norton and some of the others for helping to improving Wikipedia and to help make it a free encyclopedia of content rather than trying to make it a free encyclopedia of discussions that are nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT trying to pretend to be something else. We are not fooled. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        First of all, just about any user you include under that "IDONTLIKEIT" label has, in various forms, bothered to present an argument at least to the point where, for the very reasons this discussion is turning into mush, it became a tiresome task. This is what I found on most those AfDs, and reproaching on them that they have not been doing something to your exact specifications (you being a part in this dispute), that they may have bothered less with some irrational answers the fourteenth time they met them, while at the same time reviewing a diversity of well-argued "delete" votes and still claiming they are "copy-pasted", is in bad taste. And, by the way, there's also an "ILIKEIT", which is the exact translation of your claim "Anything that is not a hoax can indeed generally be improved", i.e. "Any conceivable article must exist." And, finally: this last post of yours is the definition of a personal project of yours for interpreting, reinterpreting and reshaping wikipedia as a whole. You keep yelling out "deletionist!" and claiming that discussions are not needed except where all users agree with you. This when you are delaing with any vote that says "no" to what is in effect a self-avowed minority agenda - an agenda with absurd consequences that are in defiance of wikipedia guidelines. This tactic of yours is by now a calumnious attempt at turning the matter on its head. Dahn (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, we are a paperless encyclopedia and as such can afford to cover much more than traditional paper encyclopedias--that is the whole allure and appeal of Wikipedians. We need to think big, not small. And where in this discussion do I use the word "deletionist"? I would be able to take these accounts more seriously if they showed some reasonability. Now, you do not see me commenting or trying to rescue the bulk of these bilateral relations articles tagged with the rescue tag; however, some of those saying to delete all of them are indeed approaching these indiscriminately as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Okay, you want to make a case that some eastern European country's relations with a South American country are a stretch; I can maybe see that, but Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, two countries who BORDER each other and who have indeed had sometimes violent border disputes and attempted treaties to address these issues. Why would anyone waste time and energy saying to delete such an article that absolutely is a notable relationship in place of actually finding and using sources or if they are not familiar enough with the subject to find sources instead abstaining from the discussion? The deletes there are just downright puzzling: "It is just a random linking of two countries." Oddly enough, a delete shows that it is not a random linking of two countries: "Indonesia is the only country bordering PNG, they share the New Guinean landmass, whose indigenous inhabitants have similar cultures, there have been occasional border controversies, and PNG has at times faced the issue of Indonesian refugees crossing over; PNG's position on the Free Papua Movement, which it does not openly support so as not to antagonise Indonesia, would also be relevent to note," but instead of adding this relevant information to the article says it in the AfD with a delete! Kudos to User:SatuSuro for taking the more proactive approach here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Can" is not the same as "should", and, again, the guidlines seem to be standing in your way. And you don't see me commenting on that AfD you cite, so what is your point? Dahn (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, these articles are consistent with our guidelines, because they concern subjects with "notability" in the real world that are backed by reliable sources. We are deceiving ourselves if we are humoring the notion that the disagreement is anything more than what some simply like versus what others dislike, because it is clear that they are not hoaxes or libelous so it just comes down to individual editors' preferences rather than anything else. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I see you're starting with the same all over again. Dahn (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And if you'll allow me this one comment more: you ask, "And ultimately why, why would we rather be the Free Encyclopedia of Articles for deletion and Deletion reviews rather than the Free Encyclopedia of Articles that obviously some editors do think worthwhile?" Even if this quote is a caricature of the other point of view, allow me to note that you have answered your own question with the comments about "mature acdemics" et al.: because, as is transparent from the guidelines, this project seeks to be validated by legitimate, structured, research that is identifiable in the real world, not by experimental fancy of what can be tried out here for the first time. What supporters of these articles have repeatedly tried to achieve is substitute fancy for coherent content, and to make it seem like all who object also do it for fancy. Dahn (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If those saying to delete did not declare Tobago, a former French colony, as "not even a colony" or use "kill with fire" as edit summaries and better yet actually showed proof of having tried to improve these articles, we can take their criticisms of the articles as valid. Relations among foreign countries in which embassies exist in which dozens make their living is clearly "real world" and saying otherwise is nothing more than fiction. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yet again: I take no responsibility for those who voiced your "not even a colony" peeve, but, for the last time - how does it have a relevancy to the debate itself? You keep claiming it's an important fact that validates a separate article. But that article is quite visibly a random collection of factoids, the few relevant ones of which are discussed elsewhere, the others serving no purpose other than making the article look big. Your persistent avoidance of that fact, and your repetitive answers to questions you and only you pose are the exact reasons why further discussions anywhere but on AfDs would not make sense. Bye. Dahn (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It is hardly random. The article is about the relations of the two countries and in an organized fashion first presents a lead of the topic, then the historical relations, cultural relations, and so on. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I like the ambiguous "and so on", but let's note that what those articles reflect is a google search for and copy-paste all possible sources that mention the two respective countries together, in an awfully misguided attempt to cover empty space (performable by and catering to the barely literate). This results in the accumulation of facts we either already cover or simply shouldn't cover at all (since it's below the lines set by WP:GNG). Aside from being WP:SYNTH and only serving its own purpose, this tactic ridiculously results in most coverage being given to the least notable. As I have said many times before, and was never answered, trying to do the same for an article on more notable relations will result in absolute stupidity. We are told that the one exchange of random replies between two small countries is inherently worthy of mention, because that's what came up in a google search. We are even told that inane information such as events that happened before one state or both states existed, the relations between two languages, visits by some private persons, or any other such filler, are notable, because they are really the only things that can be said. But nobody is willing to consider matching that level of info on articles between say, France and the UK - because it would turn out to be what it is: inherently non-encyclopedic nonsense. Lovingly, Dahn (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Indiscriminately mass nominating these for deletion serves no useful purpose for our project and in fact disrupts our efforts to improve content. We are not beholden to some restrictive and ever changing concept of "notability" that interferes with our ability to build a paperless encyclopedia. We make use of what sources are available for the topic at hand. Sure "better" sources will exist for relations between France and the United Kingdom, but even if that relation is more "notable" than some others, it does not automatically mean that any relations not on the same level are not relevant to historians, economists, and political scientists. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sigh. Do you see me "indiscriminately mass nominating these for deletion"? I suppose not, so you are building yourself a nice strawman. The issue I raised was not primarily about sources, but about detail, in direct relations to defining trivia: most bilateral articles cover a level of detail that would never be reached on other pages, and that we would immediately expose as ridiculous were it attempted on other pages. If the sources covering a supposed relationship only discuss trivial details, that no other relations articles would ever mention, or mirror generalities that are already cover elsewhere, using them to "validate" a topic is a mockery of WP:GNG. Your "use of what sources are available for the topic at hand" claim is special pleading, and therefore a fallacy. Dahn (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether you personally are indiscriminately mass nominating these for deletion, some indeed are and after all we have the same handful of accounts responsible for most of these nominations and for flocking with deletes in practically all of them. Only a fraction that usually say to delete have indeed offered at least on occasional keep. What is an is not "trivial" is subjective. The so-called reasons for deletion are a fallacious interpretation of WP:GNG. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A Nobody, with all due respect, when asked to evaluate laughable topics like "Argentina–Cyprus relations", irony is a natural response. Though I note it too has been slapped with a "rescue" tag, and I'm sure some deputy foreign ministers' meeting at which the Argentine side expressed support for Cypriot unification will be seized upon by "keep" voters. Regarding France – Trinidad and Tobago relations, see the talk page - to the extent French ownership of Tobago is notable, we document it at History of Trinidad and Tobago; to the extent French language influence on the vernacular there is notable, we mention it at Trinidadian English. But neither of these instances (which ended at the very beginning of the 19th century) has anything whatever to do with a state that became independent in 1962. We can pretend it does, as the article currently does, but why not present the information in a fashion that actually makes sense?
    - Or for another atrocious trivia collection ("rescued", I may add, by the individual whose attack page we are discussing here), see Switzerland–Uruguay relations. The first paragraph absurdly inflates a trivial phenomenon. I won't dissect the whole affair, and how repeating "Uruguay is the Switzerland of the Americas" five times doesn't prove anything about a notable relationship, but just take a look at this sentence: "In 1931 Uruguay called for a Swiss style parliamentary system". Now, aside from the fact that it was actually the President of Uruguay who made that call (and not his two million countrymen speaking in unison), and aside from the fact that this too has nothing whatever to do with "Switzerland–Uruguay relations", can you see how grossly misplaced the statement is? If we had an actual article on the General Assembly of Uruguay (which we don't at present; this is promising) - an article discussing the institution's origins, development, structure, Constitutional role, proposals for reform, debates, and so forth - then, in that context, it might be valid to mention that a proposal was once made for adopting a Swiss-style form of government. But not in a fictitious treatment of a fictitious topic, as presently. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - We can present this information in those articles and in that article. Battle of Waterloo overlaps with Napoleon. Encyclopedic articles indeed frequently containg information covered in other articles. The background history of the two countries presented in a bilateral relations article does make it sense, because it shows readers: 1) here is the historical colonial relationship followed by 2) what has happened since, i.e. post-colonial. If we can find no sources to verify anything in an article, then okay, and after all, in the hordes of these nominations, I have not commented in perhaps the majority of them, because even I as someone with degrees in history and political science cannot rescue all of them. But even in the cases where all we can verify is embassies, we still nevertheless provide our readers with a valid research answer, i.e. they ask, "I wonder if Switzerland and Uroguay have any kind of bilateral relations?" Then, they can see, okay, so they just have this and that. Even if a stub, it is still an answer to their question, which is what a reference is supposed to provide and after all stub are much like the Micropedia volumes of Britannica that provide short summaries of subjects that they do not have enough to sustain a full article in the Macropedia volumes. But even then, again, I firmly believe that there is no such thing as useless knowledge and for a paperless encyclopedia/almanac hybrid, verifiability is all that matters, not jumping through hoops asserting subjective standards of "notability." If it is not a hoax and can be verified in ANY capacity and ANY established editors believe there to be value in this information, we should err on the side of being a more comprehensive and valuable resource tool than a diminished one. After all, I certainly do not care for everything we cover, but hey, to each his own. Just because something may not seem notable to me does not mean it is relevant to others and something like bilateral relations is relevant to students of history, diplomacy, and economics, even these so-called obscure ones, because sometimes it is these obscure topics that scholars come across in encyclopedias that is not elaborated on in detail but that entices the readers to find out more and produce monographs that future encyclopedists can use. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, we know your Napoleon/Waterloo analogy. But that fails on a very important count. Dozens of books - the highest form of scholarship - exist on Napoleon, and a similar number about Waterloo. Naturally, one can't discuss one entirely without the other, and those books make no attempt to do so. But no one - not a book, not an academic article, not a newspaper story, no one (aside, perhaps, from a few scraps at a government site) discusses "Switzerland–Uruguay relations" - it's a topic invented solely by Wikipedians. So in the absence of actual coverage of a topic, editors here are left to build it up from scratch. That is how trivia (and it is trivia in this context) about, say, debates on legislative reform made it there. Not because someone outside the project found fit to cover the topic in that context. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you look at the Enlightenment era encyclopedias, they contain short entries based almost entirely on primary sources, because the philosophes realized that the information whether entirely accurate is nevertheless knowledge and thus important for knowledge's sake. If Switzerland and Uruguay have ANY relations, then it is not a topic invented by Wikipedians, but by those who interacted on whatever level and the relations between countries that affects their economies and diplomacy is certainly real world important. I have always found use of the term "trivia" in Wikipedia to be insulting if not elitist. What you or I consider trivia may be the basis of others' whole careers and livelihoods. Besides, strictly speaking trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's astoundingly sophistical that someone would refer to Enlightenment-era encyclopedias as models for wikipedia, and the special leading proves yet again that support for "keep" rests on attempts to revolutionize wikipedia and turn it into something else. Dahn (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia has and is built by editors with diverse interests and its appeal to the public at large is that it is theoretically the compendium of just about all knowledge that is not a hoax or libelous in nature or of a mere myspace only. What Wikipedia is supports retaining these articles; turning it into something different, i.e. something that turns away editors and readers who are interested in these subjects, would be to remove this content that out of thousands of editos and readers maybe a dozen or so are fixating their efforts on trying to remove them. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We are creating a single wikipedia, not several. The definition you provide is yours, and does not match with the guidelines, regardless of how you chose to ignore them, just like it shows that these articles push a minority vision of what wikipedia should be. And please don;'t start again with the "editors who might be interested" speculation - I've already answered why it's not a reasonable expectation, and have done so about a million times by now. Dahn (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The definition I go by is our first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars, i.e. we are a hybrid of general encyclcopedias, specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazeteers. My perception of Wikipedia is entirely in line with what Wikipedia has been and is and does not follow some minority vision of what Wikipedia should not be by a handful of determined accounts. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Guys, this page is for discussing whether to delete Norton's user page, not what to do about the bilateral relations articles. Let's please try to stay on topic, and if you want to discuss the bilateral relations articles you can do so elsewhere (it may even be beneficial to begin a centralized discussion somewhere). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As one "exposed" by the page, I must say I'm not really insulted - rather intrigued. While I see no point to this page in terms of project value, I find it a fascinating glimpse into how its creator relates to wikipedia and other editors. This conspiracy theory stands as the culmination of long debates into which the user would return over and over with the exact same justification, regardless of how many times it was challenged with arguments; it basically tells people that everybody who is not with him is against him. For what it's worth, I agree with Bali and Drawn Some on this one. Dahn (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find it more polarizing than helpful and generally agree than it's investing time in finding faults in other editors when it may be wiser to invest that energy in building an encyclopedia. Having stated that ... if they feel this collection will grow into something useful then make a case for that ASAP. Otherwise it sets up an adversarial approach will likely won't help anyone. -- Banjeboi 00:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What an odd document. Apparently, even !voting "keep" along with Richard is insufficient to keep one from being listed as an "Extraordinary Deletionist". With the retitle, I don't see a major problem with keeping the page. I'm not sure the proposed AN/I posting will have the effect Richard desires, since most of the AfD's corroborate a rather toxic approach on his part rather than a deletionist conspiracy, but to each their own. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close procedurally After the rename, and Norton's statement that he is using this page to plan an ANI report, I think many of the !votes above (including mine) are no longer applicable. Norton handled the situation poorly by giving the page a sardonic title and by refusing to respond to multiple requests for clarification about this page, but now that he's named a constructive purpose for it then there's no longer any need to delete it as an unconstructive shit-list. Whether or not his future ANI posting of this will be fruitful is not MfD's place to judge. Anyway, I think this MfD ought to be closed now that we're talking about a different thing than we were at the beginning (since Norton has finally responded); if people still think the page is inappropriate, they can re-nominate it and start a new discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Attack page, nothing less. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a tactless page that serves no positive purpose. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a page which adds nothing to the project, and only serves to heat up this infantile battle between "inclusionists" and "deletionists". I gave up keeping lists of enemies when I was about eight years old, and I'd advise Richard Arthur Norton to do the same. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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.