Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination)

3685:. There are details in many bilateral relationships that are better off in dedicated sub-articles, since WP has suggested maximum article sizes. And the WP system has enough room to accommodate the details. This article is extremely well-referenced without being wordy - every sentence ref'd and I don't see a single sentence that should be eliminated. We can reasonably presume that some or many of the other I/M bilateral relationships articles could be expanded to include the level of detail present here. Including this level of detail would make the 1563:, etc, etc, etc. The arguments to keep at the last AFD and the ones to keep at this one are as strong and pertinent as ever. I trust the closer to make a careful examination of the earlier AFD and this one. Nothing has changed except the number of editors repeating the samed failed arguments from the prior AFD. AFD is NOT A VOTE... its not weight of numbers all piling in to repeat the same argument... it's a careful consideration of the facts and arguments as presented. And so please, lets's stop this one being repeatedly sent to AFD. 1864:. In general, I believe that any two countries which have established diplomatic and trade relations have relations enough to be notable. If they had ambassadors and embassies in each country, I would stay it is a strong keep. However, it is borderline. May I make a suggestion however? There are A LOT of bilateral relations articles which are easily more notable than this one which are not written yet. I've been working to create Chinese-African articles. South Africa and the UK don't even have a bilateral relations article!-- 2893:. Yes, the two have relations (not in itself notable, as established by numerous discussions), and yes, the two have interacted at a basic level (which is normal for most any random pair of countries in the world today, and which gets reported on all the time but passes unnoticed by this encyclopedia, except in this series of nonsense articles). That said, there is no source actually covering "Iceland–Mexico relations" in any depth; there are only brief news items about routine interactions that Wikipedians have 4218:. The subject, while notable, is not in, say, Britannica, because of the esoteric nature of the topic. Encyclopedic in this context is shorthand for well defined in scope (the article is limited to Mexico-Iceland relations, a distinct subject that can be covered) supported by references (not making shit up to fill a page) and documenting (admittedly subjective) important knowledge. Cruft is something to fight against, and I've been doing it for years, but this is not that. -- 1416:- there are something like 200 sovereign states in the world and it's a fair bet that they've all made friendly noises at all the others at some point. Does that mean we should have 40,000 articles of this sort? Of course not. Vague expressions of agreeableness between that countries that haven't really got much do do with one another, and don't even have embassies in the other, are nothing to base an article on. 291: 2413:

unconstructive, though it's a useful device by which the GNG can be twisted to mean whatever one pleases. Back in the days when people thought that it was a fixed fundamental principal rather than a rough guide, I got a good deal of practice at quibbling about it in either direction to support whichever position I held, but now I prefer to discuss whether or not something is actually notable or not.

3190:). Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated. Neither country even has an ambassador in the other country. The canvassing means that a "Keep" result is highly suspect. 3107:

detail in proportion to the drama above a certain threshold. Accodingly, this would see Mexico-Iceland afforded no content. This is a rigid, linear scaling method that is almost never properly used anywhere. Better to minimally include the top half dozen most interesting things in the relationship. As a reader, that is what I expect to find in any resource. --

1843:: Canvassing aside, most objective editors agree that you can't build an article around a trivial fact that relations exist, plus a huge quote from a speech one day. Relations are notable if you can verify something of note. Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory of every treaty ever signed. We already have an article about the foreign relations of Mexico in general. 4824: 3412:. Iceland–Mexico is better sourced, it doesn't contain sentences that were cut and paste complete with misplaced capitals and the non-standard spelling of mollusks. How is that article Libstar's standard for bilateral relations and this one he has put up for AFD? He is using the same types of sources in that article that he is condemning in this article. -- 3188: 4311:. From a procedural standpoint, it is shameless to the point of vandalism to nominate this article so soon again. I know there was precedent, but it is still lousy. From a substantive standpoint, this is another one of those unlikely but notable articles. It is well-sourced, and well-written. The nomination is, again, of the 4362:

writing a biography. Is someone not notable because there is no published biography, or has no one gotten around to writing one yet? I don't think we can assume every biography of someone dead is already written, it is just silly. Having a published biography almost guarantees notability, but the absence doesn't mean anything. --

839:

opinions of those who previously participated might change? And a meeting that affects the interactions between two countries, thus has a notable impact on history, and belongs in this encyclopedia. If treaties were made, then its notable, not just someone getting together to have tea and exchange pleasantries.

2012:

statement that says nothing about concrete actions for bilateral relations, Iceland have said similar statements all around the world given that they are a leader in geothermal energy. The funniest is this statement "Iceland was ranked 118th in total trade with Mexico and was ranked 4th among the countries of

3148:, sources independent of the subject are not necessary. Are you expecting all sources to not be published in Mexico, Iceland, or by authors or publishers with interest in either Mexico or Iceland? That's just silly. There are not WP:COI issues involved, for which the independent source clause exists. -- 3893:, the preference for a separate article is clear. In between we have a huge spectrum. This one seemed sourced enough to be kept. I understand the construct of the distinction you are suggesting to govern the outcome, but I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to say if I agree with you or not.-- 4902:

On the other hand, its already clear that there are bilateral relation articles that are clearly notable, articles which are clearly not notable, and a huge swath in-between where editors argue about the quality of sources, whether those sources are "significant coverage", etc., and opposing factions

4612:

Looks like a decent survey of rather minimal relations between the two countries. Since somebody has gone to the effort to put it together, let's leave it. It does no harm, and it is a verifiable and rather decently written article on a serious subject. This is not the sort of irrelevant or frivolous

4361:

Please quote directly the Knowledge (XXG) rule that demands this. Your argument assumes that every notable person already has a biography written about them. There is no Knowledge (XXG) rule that says that Knowledge (XXG) editors cannot write a biography based on the same secondary sources as someone

3778:

Well, I will challenge the premise of this comment, because after all it's the closing administrator we need to persuade. Yes, the article does have "sources" and references". But validating what, exactly? That a routine head-of-state visit once took place, the type we never normally bother to record

3048:

Remember, verifiability is not tantamount to notability. Plenty of trivial details published in newspapers around the world every day pass entirely unnoticed by this encyclopedia. Just because there isn't anything substantial to say about this relationship (and there isn't, else sources describing it

2432:

Article has enjoyed considerable improvements by editor Richard Arthur Norton. Far too much valuable info would be lost if we tried to cram details on all a nations minor relationships into a single page, rather than keeping it in dedicated artilces. The number of bilateral relationships is governed

2148:

There is no prohibition about using primary sources for articles. Knowledge (XXG) policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Knowledge (XXG), but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The only primary documents used in this article are the text of a

2011:

I agree with DustFormsWords, many of the additions are mere padding, the long quotation from Pricewaterhousecoopers really adds little value and "On the trip Olafur Ragnar Grimsson gave an interview to Organización Editorial Mexicana and said that "geothermal energy has a future in Mexico." is a mere

1693:

Actually, many relationship articles between people do exist. for example, plus I've seen a lot for various musicians. That has nothing to do with this though. The relationship between countries is far greater than anything to do with celebrities. Totally different things we're dealing with here.

1623:

The leader of one nation visits another and speaks about collaboration between their two countries, and they form agreements between them. I would think that would count as a notable relationship between them. Are the actions of nations and their leaders insignificant now, just because you consider

1448:

Assuming good faith here, but, it may be helpful to take a community college refresher mathematics course, it can be a big help. Since Iran-Iraq relations is identical to Iraq-Iran relations, and because we don't have Iraq-Iraq relations, there would be 19,900 articles with 200 entities. That is how

51:

First a mathematics lesson: If there are 200 nations in the world, the possible number of "Xinia-Yinia relations" articles is not 200=40000, since that would mean that "UK-USA relations" and "USA-UK relations" are different things needing separate articles, and that "UK-UK" relations is possible. The

4750:

with flying colours, and excellently informative article, it should be improved if possible, not deleted. This kind of relatively obscure but well documented articles are what makes WP more useful and informative than any "normal" encyclopedia. I am sorry that the canvassing incident smeared some of

4029:

WP:GAL — Get A Life instead of challenging well-done articles on esoteric topics. Knowledge (XXG) is not paper, the presence of this article in no way impinges upon the WP experience of any user. This is a waste of time challenging good material when crap is flooding through the in-basket even as we

3767:

Plenty of reliable sources allowing for an well-referenced, informative article. The arguments supplied by the nominating editor and others are entirely unconvincing and border on IDONTLIKEIT. No amount of heckling is likely to change my opinion so I would suggest to the nominating editor that he or

3446:

a few days ago so you deliberately select a very early stub for comparison. This AfD does not exist for debating its notablity or suitability. it's a strategy that you're using when you have nothing more to argue. if you are questioning its notability because it does not meet your extremely high bar

1933:

I note that none of this addresses my deletion argument above, which was not based on a lack of notability. My Delete still stands post-expansion. The delete votes of Savoneux and Good ol'Factory also do not appear to be able to be addressed merely by expansion and addition of sources (I'm hopefully

1284:

In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively

1111:

And you are useing that statement there to steer a perfectly good and honest statement towards an poorly writen and vaguely outlined policy that allows you to not only avoid statements like the one above but to discredit the !votes of others. I'm perfectly fine with allowing you to use OTHERSTUFF as

648:

If the argument is " Iceland has a non resident ambassador in Washington D.C., Mexico has a non resident ambassador in Copenhagen, Denmark." and my argument is "It is a silly way to judge a relationship. The US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba." It is not the strawman at

106:

In total, my personal opinion here is that these foreign relations are not high priority; diplomatic relations between the countries are sporadic and light. Nonetheless, reasonable arguments have been presented by the "keep" side, and since they enjoy support, I'm closing this with the predicted "no

4175:

speaks of how "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications",

3477:

I am assuming good faith, but maybe if you spent more time on the article you started and less here, your article would be improved and not have material cut and pasted directly from websites. If you do cut and paste, at least add in quotations, or at least change the sentence case to the Knowledge

3106:

Biruitorul, I don’t agree with your approach. We should have something on every international relationship. For some relationships, the material will be much more dramatic than for others. So be it. You seem to want to have an independent measure, such that dramatic relationships are covered in

2757:

We have seen the embassy canard before. It has no known precedence in Knowledge (XXG). If you know of a rule that says something about it please quote it. The US doesn't have an embassy in Iran or Cuba. It shouldn't be used as a marker for notability since the US relationship with Iran and Cuba are

2216:

volcano, so do we report this in this article? I am surprised you have not added sporting results between these countries as you have diligently pushed in other bilateral articles. A long quotation from Pricewaterhousecoopers means very little except to accountants and not the general reader of WP.

2211:

I am not at all deriding the sources nor their accuracy, I am commenting on how they are used to build a case for notable bilateral relations. Iceland commenting on geothermal energy in Mexico undoubtedly happened but I fail to see how this relates to concrete bilateral actions. Reliable sources in

59:

Second, my role as an AFD closer is to evaluate consensus. This is not a pure vote count, but I do think the amount of support a viewpoint gets is indicative of how well it is accepted by the community. In general "rough consensus" means a "general agreement", and if the community is roughly evenly

2737:

Iceland's embassy for mexico is in... the United States. Mexico's embassy for Iceland is in... Denmark. No reliable sources independent of the subject discuss this relationship in any non-trivial depth. While the fact that weather in both countries is effected by the Gulf Stream is true, that says

2602:

Knowledge (XXG) warns this about synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not

1893:

This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD. At this point in the discussion ten additional sources have been added to the article. It now contains 26 references compared to the original 4. Spanish language articles from Mexican newspapers

755:

Reading the article, I see many things that make this relationship notable enough to be mentioned in its own article. Please read through the article, before just deciding you don't like articles of this type, and trying to delete it. The content makes it notable, not the opinions of others. And

267:

this article hinges on 4 sources, one of them merely confirms they established diplomatic relations and confirms no embassies. the "agreement for the promotion and mutual protection of investments" is common between any 2 nations doing even a small amount of trade. both countries being affected by

4445:

requires sources to actually be at hand, and does not permit unprovable speculation about what might exist out there. Second, if we can for a moment drop the pretense that this pairing is anything but laughable, we'd acknowledge that Iceland's notable relationships are probably limited to US, UK,

4418:

An Icelandic-Mexican relationship exists outside WP - and has since 1964 - most recently in the form of binding bilateral agreements on agriculture, taxation, and energy along with oral commitments to support each other's agendas in the UN. These are admittedly mostly supported by primary sources

4189:

Knowledge (XXG) rules state: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This meets that

4108:

Drama about the need to get rid of ARS aside, my deletionist tendencies just cant support getting rid of well-fleshed out bilateral relations articles such as these. It is well referenced, undoubtedly encyclopedic, and (while not a criteria for keeping) quite useful for a political junkie such as

2939:

has sources on the "insurgency" and "civil war". "Invasion of Iraq" does not have to appear, any accurate synonym will do. How do we know what a synonym for relationship is? Just look at what the US State Department uses as their website for US relationships, and what the headings are: import and

2073: 67:

The delete side have argued that the foreign relations between these two countries are not notable. The number of possible "Xinia-Yinia relations" articles is after all very large, and where the diplomatic and economic contact between the countries is very limited, they are unlikely to be of much

3888:

is a long article, maybe it could be included, maybe not. I see these "Foreign relations of x-y" articles come up in AfD, and I haven't commented very often because I am not well-versed in how these AfDs actually decide which articles get kept and which deleted. In very weak cases of two small

2491:

From the same page:"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus

1164:

recent, related AfD. In fact all of the canvassed users generally or exclusively !vote to keep Bilateral relations article, so this a clear example of votestacking. Furthermore, RAN has added the {{rescue}} tag to the article. As the article was already tagged for ARS rescue during the last AfD,

724:

The same nominator is sending this to AFD again? Its the same article is before. Make sure to tell all those who participated in it last time, its time to do this over again. I'm just going to copy and paste my comments from last time, since nothing has changed, and my statements still stand.

505:

Really Richard? this is an extremely weak comparison, the reason the US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran and North Korea is for a long time they did not have any diplomatic relations and applied sanctions and embargoes to these countries. none of this applies to Mexico-Iceland. secondly very few

1786:

You misunderstand. What I'm saying is that a documented relationship between two notable parties is not of itself inherently notable. Notability is not inherited; reports of relations between Iceland and Mexico may only attest to the notability of Iceland and Mexico, not the notability of the

4286:

by training) discussed the relationship with the president (a lawyer and an economist), probably in such generalities as "relations are excellent" (what else could one expect between this particular pair?) and "let's boost trade". But this encyclopedia relies on published material that treats

3094:

Now, if we don't give priority to that sort of trivia in articles on actually notable relationships (and let's drop the pretense for a moment, because no expert actually believes "Iceland–Mexico relations" is a notable topic), why do it here, other than as an exercise in "watch me do this"? -

838:

Keep nominating it until you get the outcome you want. I thought there was a rule about that somewhere. Anyway, when you say "consensus can change", do you mean that the random bunch of people that appear to express their opinions may give you a different outcome, or do you believe that the

756:

unless you have done a proper search in the language of these two nations, for things mentioned in the newspapers of the countries involved, you aren't going to be finding a lot of third party media coverage. But surely such events would in fact be mentioned there. Does anyone doubt this?

3063:

is undoubtedly a notable subject that should be covered comprehensively by Knowledge (XXG). An important question is how to organise it. Deleting bits of it in the name of WP:N, which exists to stem mostly promotional stuff, does not help in answering the question, damages the concept of

2611:, so if I say that the relations between Iceland and Mexico are "improving" or are "awesome" or are "getting worse" or are "not notable", I am synthesizing a new conclusion not present in the original material. None of the material used violates the Knowledge (XXG) concept of synthesis. -- 2412:

Sufficient commercial relations,which is one key type of foreign relations--perhaps the key type, because thats the usual reason for treaties and political visits and the like. Relying on the technicalities of "substantial" and the like to argue for or against an article is in my opinion

4341:

anywhere? Oh, and could we please avoid the not-so-subtle charges of xenophobia against Libstar? That does nothing to improve the "keep" voters' argument, which, as far I can tell, says we should prioritize any and every variety of trivia, provided it's presented in a pretty format. -

2063:. The standard for inclusion is notability, which is defined as significant coverage of the topic in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While this article has bunch of sources, on inspection none of them meet this standard. Many are not independent, e.g. 3017:

and the topic in-of itself is notable. The foreign relations of any two nations that are internationaly recognized, wether it be Mexico and Iceland or Peru and Sri Lanka are naotable based on the diplomatic status of the two nations and the relationship (or lack there-off) between

883:

Consensus has shown through bilateral articles you failed to delete, that if enough people are around to notice and participate in the AFD, then they are usually kept, because the relationship between two nations is automatically notable by rules of common sense above all else.

4419:

right now, but that is not a reason to delete, government sources will do to establish notability. If it's lacking in secondary sources, I would say that's probably due to a lack of EN WP editors fluent enough in either Spanish or Icelandic to find the secondary sources.

3251:

This is a red herring and irrelevant to the present discussion. There are not enough good sources for a standalone article, and the information is better presented within "Foreign relations of..." articles for each sovereign relation rather than forming all binary pairs.

2164:. OEM is the largest Mexican print media company and the largest newspaper company in Latin America. Deriding it as a source is just silly and US centric. You wouldn't say that about the largest US newspaper, the Wall Street Journal or CNN, the most visited news website. 3078:

Again, not every facet of international relations need be noticed by this encyclopedia, and the norm for relationships that are actually notable is not to do so. To give one example, Israel and Syria interact in fairly important ways every week of every year. That does

1394:

And for what it's worth, it doesn't appear that canvassing for keep votes has so far influenced the discussion here (although it's still inappropriate). If anything it's helped bring an opposing viewpoint to the table that otherwise wouldn't have been represented. -

84:, but so limited that the bilateral relations can be done by another embassy. I find the counter-argument "what about Iran-USA?" to be rather off-the-point since those relations are notable for entirely different reasons (sanctions, mutual distrust, 1979 crisis, etc.) 4918: 3064:

comprehensibility, and is bad for Knowledge (XXG). Blind application of WP:N is bad. This sort of material is what we want in the encyclopedia, and whether it is to be stand-alone, or in a larger article on trivial relations, "Delete" is the wrong way to go. --

3727:

Your previous complaint was that there was no in-depth interpretative material on the relationship, just isolated facts. Now you appear to be taking the opposite approach. When an interpretive source is added it becomes: " wordy quotation in accountant speak".

1817:

Knowledge (XXG) has no such requirement that we need a "substantive article" to determine notability. 10 facts from 10 sources have the same depth of coverage as 10 facts from a single source. A single source is just more convenient when writing an article.

1161: 72:

inclusionists think most, if not all, such bilateral relationships are notable per se, but that is a small minority, and in my experience, not one which enjoys any consensus. The question must therefore be whether the Iceland-Mexico relations are notable.

2338:

You haven't addressed my argument; namely that the material is short in scope and would be more appropriately covered in the existing articles on this topic. You also haven't addressed the argument that the sources merely establish the notability of the

4598:- My Delete vote above notwithstanding, it should be abundantly clear to everyone at this point that there's no community consensus at this stage to delete this article. Let's get the AfD closed so we can all put our energy to more productive things. - 2802:: This is actually a good article, regardless of whether it is notable or not. It has a couple of pictures (including the infobox), is well referenced, and the material is divided in sections. There is no good reason to delete such a decent article.-- 1095:

it's hardly a shield, we are here to debate the merits of this article not other articles you think are weaker. "The nature of Knowledge (XXG) means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist".

4437:; primary sources can't be used to validate the notability of a topic, and need to be discussed by published secondary sources. The government sources merely tell us relations exist, which is not inherently notable (per previous discussions and 3364: 1226:

I was about to point that out as well but got snagged in the edit conflict. A neutral message sent to only one "side" of a discussion is precisely what that guideline spells out as unacceptable behavior. This is a fairly blatant violation.

137: 1540:

article about notable relationship between two countries that is supported by proper sources and has many more available for continued expansion and further improvement. Even the briefest of searches finds that Mexico has a consulate in

2171: 653:

presented facts, no strawman was created and demolished. It is no different than someone arguing that we can't have articles on countries based on the letter Z, and my counter argument is we already have articles on Zambia and Zimbabwe.

1189:

it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered

1624:

it so routine? I would think it notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) article, and having a place that list all the agreements and ties between two nations something of obvious educational value for any looking up that information.

236: 1584:

And has been pointed out to you and other inclusions along the way, diplomatic relationships and treaties are a routine matter of course, and do not establish notability. The pointless arguments are on your side, I'm afraid.

3641:

Whilst not wanting to comment on this particular article, because it is a little hard to ascertain whether it is notable or not, having non-resident ambassadors does not tell one whether the relationship is notable or not.

4235:

The key phrase here is "supported by references". I don't dispute the validity of the sources themselves. I do dispute that they amount to a notable relationship, since none of them actually talks about it in any depth. -

3665:

Monaco is so tiny it (population 33,000 less than 2km squared) it is hard to justify an embassy there. I think only France and Italy have embassies. Most countries would get their ambassador in Paris to look after Monaco.

535:

When people stop using the canard of embassies and ambassadors as markers for notability I will not need to mention it anymore. It isn't a straw man argument. In a straw man I take the weakest argument and attack it. Only

63:

Third, I disagree strongly that this AFD nomination is "shameless to the point of vandalism". The last AFD was a year ago, and ended with a "no consensus" result. It is accepted practice to renominate in that situation.

4567:

Still an ad hoc collection of incidents and events between the two countries without any study of relations as a whole or assertion of a notable relationship in world events compared to any other random two countries.

3817:

Milowent, you generally have something worth saying on AfDs - would you care to comment on my argument above that (a) despite being notable, the material can more appropriately be dealt with in the existing articles

1674:

may both be notable. If Anniston lends Grant $ 100, they both go to a party, and have some friends in common, and it's all documented in reliable independent sources, that still doesn't provide support for creating

3246:

The US is in a state of active hostility with at least Iran, North Korea, and Cuba, and deliberately withholds diplomatic relations. Bhutan is an isolated country which has "had relations with" few other countries.

2718:

as not any more notable than any two arbitrarily chosen countries, and less notable than many. Precedent is clear that WP editors do not accept assertions of bilateral notability on the basis of common treaties.

3543:

I wonder when number of sources became the criteria for notability. We deleted probably hundreds of bios for BLP1E that probably have more than 10 reliable sources. Source and notability are not interchangeable.

4399:

Again it is a standard refutation of your logic and not the strawman fallacy. The absence of a published book or long article dedicated to a topic does not mean the topic is not notable. I know of no such rule.

1787:

relationship between them. The relevant test is whether there is another material on the relationship to found a substantive article of a length that makes covering it in the existing articles impractical. -

102:

There has generally not been a consensus that sources need to mention the phrase "Iceland-Mexico relations" or similar in order to be counted as a valid source, as long as the topic is related to the subject.

1555: 4446:

Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and maybe a handful of others, while Mexico's are largely limited to US, Canada, UK, France, plus a slew of countries in Central and South America. Not "Iceland–Mexico". -

2016:". there are 4 countries in EFTA so what is really saying that Iceland is the worst performer! this is trying to inflate the status of Mexico Iceland trade when on closer inspection reveals the opposite. 1376:). There is no demonstrated need for a spin-off article. Simply because notability for a topic can be demonstrated does not mean a stand-alone article is the appropriate way to present the information. - 48:. Some of the later notes ask for a rationale here explaining what is good and bad in the debate, and since I am probably known for writing way too long AFD closing rationales anyway, I'll give it a go. 3372: 132: 87:

No major trade relations, Iceland is only in 118th place on the Mexican list. It is pointed out that this does not detract from notability. I'll add that it probably does not enhance notability either.

2527:

Two comments about Richard Arthur Norton's quote above: (1) This is the third time in this discussion he has quoted that passage. Saying it over and over again does not make it any more true. (2) "...

432:- Can't find anything to add to an article that basically says "relations exist". And it's also hard to justify keeping Country X-Country Y articles when neither has an embassy in the other country. 2477:

Knowledge (XXG) states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --

1309:

Knowledge (XXG) states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --

1241:

Knowledge (XXG) states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --

90:

Information should be included in the two countries "foreign relations of X" article. Certainly a possibility, since many articles are covered this way. This solution will require serious trimming.

4650: 1478:— This bilateral relations meme to create yet moar articles needs to end. It is a trick of the obsessive-minded to endlessly inflate things. Really, what's next? An article on the significance of 1332:

Richard, if you feel that this behaviour is not canvassing then please keep it up with other AfDs...but I would strongly recommend you don't. Editors in the past have been blocked for canvassing.

3826:, and, in the alternative, (b) that the sources demonstrate notability accruing to the foreign relations of the individual countries, not necessarily accruing to this particular relationship? - 3478:(XXG) style or change the wording slightly. All the changes I made to this article were made in a single day. And remember what you say (I am paraphrasing), don't make claims that the article 3349:

I do think that since the consensus in the previous afd for this article was to keep it, and you haven't provided any diffs to prove your case. Even if it did, consensus can change over time.

758:

Is there any reasonable doubt at all that meetings and treaties between two nations, would be covered in major newspapers of those countries, thus satisfying the current notability guidelines?

4388:, other than in passing mentions we'd never normally notice outside this series of nonsense articles, been addressed in any sort of depth by published sources, peer-reviewed or otherwise. - 60:

divided, as is the case here, a "no consensus" outcome is the usual result. This may be fudged a little, but I only do that when the arguments presented are lopsidedly stronger on one side.

3616:

based on notability? Namely, that there is no rationale for why this material can't be covered in the existing articles "Foreign relations of Mexico" and "Foreign relations of Iceland"? -

3368: 2822:

article about a totally non-notable subject such as my cat for instance, complete with a photo and an infobox, and divided into sections- but that doesn't make it suitable for inclusion.

806:

relations. simply being reported in newspapers of individual meetings is not necessarily sufficient. if say 2 presidents met yearly that would be a strong indicator of notable relations.

230: 196: 3232:

The US doesn't have an embassy or ambassador in Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba. In the end it comes down to: Are the sources reliable, and is there enough for a standalone article. --

1679:. Some information is trivial no matter how well-sourced it is, and if it's to be covered at all it can be adequately covered in the main arguments rather than in a spin-off article. - 912:

I am not aware of any material being deleted. Smaller articles were merged into larger articles. None of the material was deleted. The ones that were just a few sentences were merged in

1350:

Relations appear to exist, but mere existence isn't enough for inclusion. There doesn't seem to be anything notable here. I'd also like to note that canvassing has obviously occurred.

4457:

Reliable sources determine notability not what makes Biruitorul laugh. It is much easier to determine too, since Biruitorul will not always be available to perform his laugh test. --

1073:

as a shield. The guy makes a point in his argument and If your only reply is OTHERSTUFF, it discredits your own delete vote since you have on other way to deal with the Keep !Vote.--

298: 4886:

Seconded. There's obviously going to have to be community discussion about these kind of articles generally and a neutral summary of what's gone on here would be of assistance. -

1547: 3779:

in this encyclopedia? Or that Iceland has some puny business venture in Mexico? How about sources that actually discuss, you know, "Iceland–Mexico relations" in their totality? -

2084:. Per guidelines, we need at least two independent sources that actually address these countries' relationship in a direct, non-trivial manner, and we just don't have that here. 1982:

Indeed. What is needed is more substance, not more citations of what is already there, and weak. There's a gulf of difference between the relationship of these two, and, say

1140: 869:

consensus has shown through deleted bilateral articles that a few treaties (and these are agreements which are weaker and harder to enforce) do not make for notable relations.

2535:

appear intended to improve rather than to influence. What is more, that is so obvious that it is difficult to understand how Richard Arthur Norton can fail to see that fact.

2324:

It isn't a strawman argument, in the strawman scenario I just attack the weakest of multiple arguments. Here I attack all the arguments, so it is just a normal refutation. --

415:

seems to cover all the information. If the sources were linked there there would be no loss of content since the article doesn't really say anything than "Relations Exist."--

4864:) if you could provide some analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments proffered here, rather than just stating there was no consensus and moving on. Thanks. 2236: 2231: 2897:

are equivalent to "Iceland–Mexico relations". That, of course, is bogus; we need independent sources providing in-depth coverage; unsurprisingly, these are not to be found.

1031:

and Knowledge (XXG) has common outcomes. Pointing to a weaker article has its flaws, but pointing to a similar article edited by multiple people is a good argument showing

2240: 191: 2918:

MichaelQSchmidt, conspicuously absent in your explication of the "sources" is one that actually addresses this relationship, not aspects thereof you may find notable. -

568:

as you are oversimplifying an opponent's argument by comparing it to very selective instances of non-existence of embassies, then attacking this oversimplified version.

4676: 2889:- as several readers have pointed out, the topic itself has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as mandated by 1601:

You are correct when you say: "diplomatic relationships and treaties ... do not establish notability". It is the mentioning of diplomatic relationships and treaties in

589: 164: 159: 1894:

and English language sources from Google News Archive have been added. The closing administrator may want to compare the nominated version versus the current version.

4702: 2223: 615: 168: 4778:

You know, saying "strongest possible keep" doesn't make your vote count twice as much. And it then makes you look silly if you're every asked to vote in an AfD on

3911:

Thanks for replying. I'm testing the argument, too, as it seems to be solid and policy supported, and I'm rather disappointed no one's directly rebutted it yet. -

2970:. The point is that there should be some source(s) that provide some sort of an overview of the topic, should it exist. None do in this case, which is telling. - 1049:

Obioulsy, I know my comment (almost) apply there. I'm not saying "S-U exist. this too", I'm saying "If this article will be delete, Samoa-United States relations

802:

leaders and ministers between nations (given that are about 200 nations in the world) meet thousands of time a year, a few visits does not necessarily constitute

506:

countries have embassies in Bhutan given that it is so small, so mentioning it here has zero relationship with Mexico-Iceland. this is another case of classical

151: 4263:

President Calderón and Ambassador Jónsson discussed Icelandic-Mexico relations, in particular ways to strengthen the bilateral trade between Iceland and Mexico

2160:, is 100% subjective. It was published in reliable media on the subject. It was vetted by Google News as reliable. You are deriding the original media source, 3091:

to chronicle the important happenings, but will not include every one of thousands of available press clippings on more mundane aspects of the relationship.

1187:

Knowledge (XXG) says: "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions

4977: 4960: 4930: 4912: 4895: 4877: 4842: 4815: 4799: 4769: 4738: 4717: 4691: 4665: 4640: 4623: 4590: 4559: 4518: 4504: 4486: 4466: 4452: 4428: 4409: 4394: 4371: 4348: 4328: 4297: 4277: 4242: 4230: 4199: 4182: 4162: 4140: 4121: 4092: 4077: 4055: 4017: 3995: 3975: 3945: 3920: 3902: 3873: 3835: 3808: 3785: 3773: 3757: 3737: 3718: 3702: 3675: 3658: 3625: 3603: 3585: 3553: 3532: 3491: 3460: 3421: 3381: 3358: 3344: 3333: 3316: 3293: 3279: 3261: 3241: 3225: 3199: 3157: 3131: 3116: 3101: 3073: 3055: 3043: 3026: 3001: 2976: 2949: 2924: 2869: 2837: 2813: 2794: 2767: 2747: 2728: 2710: 2693: 2662: 2638: 2620: 2593: 2544: 2518: 2498: 2486: 2462: 2442: 2424: 2390: 2360: 2333: 2317: 2291: 2200: 2138: 2118: 2097: 2047: 2025: 1999: 1973: 1947: 1910: 1868: 1852: 1827: 1796: 1767: 1717: 1688: 1661: 1647: 1614: 1594: 1575: 1524: 1498: 1458: 1431: 1404: 1385: 1356: 1341: 1318: 1295: 1268: 1250: 1236: 1221: 1201: 1178: 1120: 1105: 1081: 1064: 1044: 1018: 1002: 982: 958: 925: 907: 878: 862: 833: 815: 797: 748: 714: 692: 663: 630: 604: 577: 549: 519: 491: 467: 450: 424: 281: 116: 3860:

are already large and unwieldy, and why would we want the same information duplicated in the two articles? What good would come from taking the article

2377:

are already large and unwieldy, and why would we want the same information duplicated in the two articles? What good would come from taking the article

2038:

Better to use the exact wording of the original source. As you argued once before, introducing bias and synthesis can be a hazard in Knowledge (XXG). --

2915:. This encyclopedia is based on sources that can actually be located, not on hypothetical sources in Icelandic and Spanish that may or may not exist. 4514: 4482: 4462: 4405: 4367: 4291:, great. That didn't happen, though, and we're left without evidence of attention paid to the topic in published sources by experts in the field. - 4195: 4158: 4073: 3889:

un-connected countries where the article has no substantive content or sources, deletion seems appropriate. In cases of two large countries, e.g.,

3869: 3733: 3487: 3417: 3289: 3275: 3237: 3221: 2992:. Like many of these, there is nothing here beyond the normal pedestrian functions of government. There is nothing notable about this relationship. 2945: 2865: 2763: 2658: 2616: 2514: 2482: 2386: 2329: 2313: 2196: 2134: 2114: 2043: 1969: 1906: 1823: 1763: 1610: 1520: 1454: 1314: 1264: 1246: 1197: 1134: 1040: 921: 659: 545: 487: 4726:

International relations are notable and this has an abundance of information and reliable sources. I can't understand how this is not encyclopedic.

3338:

You may think that, but consensus reached at numerous AfDs is that that is not the case - one needs sources referring to an actual relationship. -

2078:(108 words.) And many are not on the topic itself, but rather on specific visits or mention Mexico-Iceland relations only trivial in passing, e.g. 4583: 2433:

by n! / ( (n-2)! x 2) so if we have 200 recognised nations we'd have only a very reasonable 19,900 items , not 40,000 as has been claimed.

1112:

a reason why his !vote is not sufficient to keep the article but to have your only reply be a link to a policy is robotic in nature and rude.--

702:. I don't understand why these are created when there is nothing more to say than "relations exist". The information can easily be included in 251: 2701:- Clearly the article needs expanding, but it seems that reliable sources discuss Icelandic-Mexican relations in detail, making them notable. 218: 4334: 4287:

subjects in depth, not on brief records of discussions about a topic. Had the ambassador published an article about this topic in, say, the

4046: 2305: 3576:, it appears that the core of WP:N stabilized at some time in the middle of 2007. But I haven't checked the history of higher-level rules. 2227: 2064: 988: 307: 4510: 4478: 4458: 4401: 4363: 4191: 4154: 4069: 3865: 3729: 3483: 3413: 3285: 3271: 3233: 3217: 2941: 2861: 2759: 2654: 2612: 2510: 2478: 2382: 2325: 2309: 2192: 2130: 2110: 2106: 2039: 1965: 1902: 1819: 1759: 1606: 1516: 1450: 1310: 1260: 1242: 1193: 1130: 1036: 917: 655: 541: 483: 4333:

It just so happens that this "topic" doesn't exist outside Knowledge (XXG), meaning it's not only unlikely, but also fictitious. Sure,

4041:

Esoteric is one thing, fictitious is quite another. Find some sources actually discussing "Iceland–Mexico relations" (sort of like how

2079: 1545: 337: 4384:

there may be notable relationships covered by journal, newspaper and magazine articles. The fact remains that this particular one has

2082: 458:"Iceland has a non resident ambassador in Washington D.C., Mexico has a non resident ambassador in Copenhagen, Denmark." Nuff said. 155: 17: 4261:

Now assuming you consider a Head-of-state and an Ambassador as foreign affairs expert, they did exactly that, by exactly that name:

3284:

While on the topic of red herrings, no one is arguing for "forming all binary pairs". We are discussing Iceland–Mexico relations. --

1160:. While the message left on these users' pages was neutral, the message was only placed on the pages of users who !voted "keep" at 1053:

be deleted to. Of course I'm not going to waste my time nominating any article for deletion. It's stupid, it's unequal. THAT'S IT.

4477:

The only two primary sources used are the images and the text of a speech. Both were used for verifiability and not notability. --

212: 4869: 4214:

You seem to be confusing 'encyclopedic' with 'previously compiled'. No worries, easy mistake to make. This is one of the joys of

2089: 1213: 1170: 445: 1961: 4943:- There are plenty of sources specifically about this topic, more so than many other topics on Knowledge (XXG). Easily passes 2279: 2191:

We report what reliable media report, Knowledge (XXG) is not about superlatives, that is the Guinness Book of World Records. --

2186: 2161: 2013: 2275: 2219: 2185:

The funniest is this statement "Iceland was ranked 118th in total trade with Mexico and was ranked 4th among the countries of

2178: 208: 3307:

Well written and sourced article. I have no relationship to Iceland or Mexico. I recommended keep during the last AfD too.

482:

It is a silly way to judge a relationship. The US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba. Nuff said.

323: 2076: 1746:

and many others. It is much better to centralize information than duplicate it over multiple articles. That is why we have

4806:

excellent point DustFormsWords, I would save "strongest possible keep" for my own city since I know it definitely exists.

3049:

would have surfaced) doesn't imply we should prioritize the trivia found about it and pollute the encyclopedia with it. -

2274:

argument. if you feel it does not meet the very high minimum notability standard of Richard Norton, feel free to nominate

1062: 1000: 956: 2904:

is a pretty well-established guideline, not one you can simply wish away. And the presence of photographs or sections is

2576:

is in place to prevent. This article may as well be titled "List of Iceland-Mexico relations". Things actually have to

2271: 1983: 1024: 1007: 147: 122: 4712: 4686: 4660: 4554: 3857: 3823: 3690: 3213: 3141: 2374: 2344: 1369: 703: 408: 258: 4992: 3643: 2935:

Once again the magic word "relationship" does not have to appear in any reference, any synonym will do. The article on

1964:, so there is no issue that needs to be addressed, just a new theory that can be explored in its own personal essay. -- 36: 4576: 3885: 3853: 3819: 3686: 3270:

Which is exactly why there is no point using it as an argument for deletion. Stick to notability and verifiability. --

3145: 3087:

gets expanded to a decent length, every twist and turn need be recorded there. A competent editor will use books like

2370: 2340: 1373: 913: 707: 412: 3084: 3324:

I think just about any bilateral relations between any two sovereign nations is notable. This case is no different.

2572:. That is a key difference, and trying to glue together the latter to make it look like the former is exactly what 4828:(for the record: I know perfectly well it doesn't make it count more, it's just a way to say what I feel about). -- 3941: 3581: 3569: 3528: 3448: 3443: 3409: 1739: 987:

Do you want another argument? Well, The article have much more information than others that I saw recently (one is

3884:

If the content remains, I don't feel strongly either way about merger in this case--I see that, for example, that

3647: 296:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

3848:

Why would we want to duplicate a large article by cutting and pasting the information into two articles that are

3312: 2365:

Why would we want to duplicate a large article by cutting and pasting the information into two articles that are

1676: 1572: 1366:

the material is short in scope and can be more appropriately dealt with at the main articles of the two countries

3136:

I see an abundance of significant coverage in reliable sources. As a spinout of the obviously notable articles

2170:

There is no magic number of words that has to be reached for a reference to be reliable or the subject notable.

1938:

non-notable (which I don't necessarily agree with) are also perhaps not addressed by an article improvement. -

1861: 1552:, the President of Iceland has spoken in Mexico City speaking about the collaboration between Iceland and Mexico 369: 4991:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

4891: 4795: 4603: 3916: 3831: 3621: 2356: 2348: 2301: 2174:. It is one of the most important scientific publications of the past 100 years. Terse doesn't mean unreliable. 1943: 1792: 1684: 1400: 1381: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

4752: 4312: 2531:". When messages are sent to numerous people with one opinion and not to people with a different opinion they 991:). I don't think that Knowledge (XXG) is US-Centrist, but I don't know why this article is not nominated too. 224: 93:

Canvassing has apparently taken place. Point noted, but the participants here appear to be good faith editors.

1957: 1747: 4709: 4683: 4657: 4551: 3137: 3060: 2743: 1848: 4509:

I think you were confusing primary sources with third party sources. It is a common mistake, no problem. --

1070: 353: 327: 99:

There is sourcing backing up most of the article, so I see no reason to delete on grounds of verifiability.

4569: 3991: 3354: 3329: 3179:

Fails notability and "not a directory or random collection of information" (like the relationship between

2857: 2540: 2438: 3964: 312: 4013: 3937: 3890: 3599: 3577: 3565: 3549: 3524: 2997: 2936: 2706: 1844: 1751: 4820:

Well, I can use my maximum keep intensity on many different articles. I have a very high keep-ability!

4215: 4134:

bothered to examine "Iceland–Mexico relations", under any name? If so, where? If not, why should we? -

3985:

Subject approached academically and with reliable sources which in theory is what an encyclopedia does.

2954:

That's a baseless argument, because we know what valid sources on actual relationships look like: like

4283: 4547: 3308: 2967: 2811: 2067: 1565: 439: 4172: 4082:

Er, isn't it sort of logical that article topics will have been covered as such by outside sources?

2629:

Taking simple agreements and declaring that as proof the relations are notable is synthesis to a T.

1206: 1144: 4887: 4791: 4599: 3954: 3912: 3827: 3617: 3153: 3112: 3069: 3039: 2352: 1939: 1788: 1680: 1396: 1377: 711: 463: 420: 244: 111: 4442: 4438: 2912: 2819: 1553: 1285:

notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters.

4973: 4956: 4926: 4908: 4840: 4767: 4621: 4500: 4424: 3898: 3804: 3698: 3019: 2739: 2070: 1495: 1192:" (my emphasis added) My message meets the guideline of informing without influencing, cheers. -- 1113: 1074: 359: 290: 4262: 2573: 269: 1754:

doesn't appear because there are just a few sentences that can be written. However, we do have

510:

argument where choosing selective examples to compare... in fact this only weakens your case.

4811: 4550:

is more than what can be crammed in the usual tables of each country's foreign relationships.

4324: 4176:

the underlying assumption being that at least one source will deal with a topic as a whole. -

4035: 4005: 3987: 3971: 3753: 3714: 3671: 3520: 3456: 3350: 3325: 2724: 2689: 2536: 2493: 2458: 2434: 2287: 2021: 1667: 1351: 1337: 1291: 1101: 1014: 978: 874: 829: 811: 626: 600: 573: 515: 277: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

4944: 4434: 3651: 3594:

Fortunately, we have the AfD's so that sort of thinking can't just run rampant unchallenged.

2492:

encouraging them to participate in the discussion." Sound like something you've done lately?

1605:

that make things notable. Notability is when the media notices an event and reports on it. --

96:

A foreign state visit. Good faith editors disagree on whether this contributes to notability.

4727: 4273: 4226: 4117: 4009: 3595: 3545: 3257: 3195: 2993: 2702: 2297: 2213: 1735: 1695: 1625: 885: 840: 775: 726: 4948: 4747: 4168: 4083: 3122: 2890: 2564:- I think a problem with many of these articles is that they aren't really articles on the 1561: 970: 821: 4903:

exist about that. I'm not sure this one AfD viewed in a vaccuum provides much guidance.--

4865: 4447: 4389: 4343: 4292: 4237: 4177: 4135: 4087: 4050: 3780: 3376: 3339: 3126: 3096: 3050: 2971: 2919: 2803: 2645:

By Knowledge (XXG) rules they are notable. Saying in the article that the relationship is

2085: 1364:- Please note this delete is NOT on the grounds of notability. It is on the grounds that 1209: 1166: 433: 4919:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Democratic Republic of the Congo – Norway relations

3014: 2677: 2581: 2270:

days ago, it cannot be turned into a full article in 1 week. truly selective and truly a

1282:

Richard you're clearly fooling no one, this is the most blatant violation I have seen of

4109:

myself. There's cruft, and then there's esoteric. This is the latter, not the former. --

4042: 3187:, which has more refs than the relations of these two countries, per Google Book Search 2959: 2955: 4790:, because you've already spent your strongest keep on Iceland-Mexico relations. :-) - 3796: 3769: 3149: 3108: 3065: 3035: 2830: 2792: 2634: 2589: 2304:

for example. Why the Olympic hockey game between Russia and US is not mentioned in the

2296:

There is no rule against sporting results in relations articles either, ask any fan of

1995: 1657: 1590: 1512: 1424: 1232: 688: 459: 416: 108: 76:

For the specific arguments (and I apologize that I'm probably not comprehensive here):

4380:

notable individuals are profiled in obituaries, newspaper and magazine articles, etc.

3010: 2901: 966: 803: 4969: 4952: 4922: 4904: 4829: 4756: 4615: 4496: 4420: 3894: 3800: 3694: 3655: 2860:

and has no usefulness. Please use arguments based on notability and verifiability. --

2420: 1027:

is a personal essay and it not Knowledge (XXG) policy. Every legal proceeding allows

53: 2603:

mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material

2181:

for a smaller article with even fewer references for a typical article on relations.

1255:

All the usual suspects are here, whether they were contacted via Knowledge (XXG) or

4807: 4787: 4634: 4320: 4031: 3967: 3749: 3710: 3667: 3452: 2720: 2682: 2584:

have to make note of that, otherwise it is just a list of agreements and treaties.

2454: 2283: 2017: 1333: 1287: 1097: 1054: 1010: 992: 974: 948: 870: 825: 807: 622: 596: 569: 511: 387: 375: 343: 273: 2257: 185: 4255:

political scientist, journalist, foreign affairs expert, or similar professional

4130:

political scientist, journalist, foreign affairs expert, or similar professional

3088: 2963: 1165:

re-tagging it now seems like a just another means to canvass sympathetic editors.

322:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

4968:- Close however you like. Those telling you how to close have already voted. -- 4267: 4220: 4111: 3447:

for notability, please nominate for deletion. however, I can confidentially say

3365:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Paraguay relations (2nd nomination)

3253: 3191: 1865: 1558: 4856:: Obviously this is going to be closed as "no consensus". However, it would be 3216:. Then the question should be is there enough text for a standalone article. -- 2781:

I've notified the participants of the first AFD who had not yet commented here

1550: 1755: 1671: 1487: 1557:, there is a mutual invetsment protection agreement between the two countries 3709:

so not the wordy quotation in accountant speak from Pricewaterhousecoopers?

3123:

significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject

2823: 2785: 2630: 2585: 2263: 1991: 1653: 1586: 1542: 1417: 1228: 1032: 1028: 684: 565: 507: 683:- Non-notable CountryX-CountryY, no significant secondary source coverage. 4921:

gets a bit more into how editors look at these bilateral relations AfDs.--

3564:

reliable, independent source providing significant coverage will suffice.

2172:

The discovery of the structure of DNA was published as just a page and 1/2

3861: 3184: 2415: 2378: 1743: 268:

the Gulf Stream somehow being related in bilateral relations is a bit of

3523:

for advertizing this debate on ANI. What a frivolous nomination it was.

2529:

if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion

4779: 3408:

How does this article, Iceland–Mexico relations, compare to Libstar's:

1483: 2940:

exports, meetings, consulates, cultural exchanges, health and NGOs. --

4316: 1934:

not misrepresenting them). Other votes suggesting that the topic is

1491: 4153:

Please quote directly the Knowledge (XXG) rule that demands this. --

4068:

Please quote directly the Knowledge (XXG) rule that demands this. --

1560:, there is a geothernmal energy agreement between the two countries 4783: 2509:

It sounds like you are wikilawyering. I love that Wikioxymoron. --

824:. there is no rule against renomination as much as you hate AfDs. 3451:

will easily have much more indepth coverage than Mexico-Ireland.

4985:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3180: 1479: 4319:

is a large country and its diplomatic relations are important.

4259:

bothered to examine "Iceland–Mexico relations", under any name?

138:

Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination)

4751:

the keep !votes, since they for sure have more merit than the

3373:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Niger–Pakistan relations

2105:

There is enough information for a full stand alone article. --

1549:, there is an agricultural agreement between the two countries 285: 3369:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Greece-Guyana relations

1905:. All the votes cast are for the version with 4 references. ( 3646:

is an example of such a relationship. I will also note that

316:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 80:

No mutual embassies. Indicates that diplomatic contact is

1900:

here is the version at which this notice has been placed.

306:

among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has

4651:

list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions

4613:

material notability guidelines were created to exclude.

2782: 2451: 2253: 2249: 2245: 1899: 1895: 1158: 1156: 1154: 1152: 1150: 1148: 181: 177: 173: 2568:

itself, but more just a rundown of what the relations

243: 4337:

are notable, but can you show coverage of this topic

4249:

Also, just to snag the low hanging fruit, you asked:

4171:

demands "significant coverage" for "a topic", while

3482:

meet Knowledge (XXG) standards, just do the work. --

3363:

Look, the point is that your argument is bogus; see

3748:indepth coverage does not mean indepth quotations. 2072:. Others do not provide significant coverage, e.g. 1544:, the two countries have a mutual income tax treaty 257: 2607:, which is original research." Synthesis requires 2266:argument. for an article that I literally created 4441:). And two things about your final point. First, 2278:for deletion. "ranked 4th among the countries of 649:all. It is a direct counterargument based on the 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 4995:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3572:) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC) As to your question 1986:. In the end, as a wise author once observed, 2168:Others are not significant ... word count = 34 133:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations 3864:and duplicating the text in 4 biographies? -- 3612:Would you care to address the arguments that 3442:Richard, learn to indent properly. I created 3249:"I did not have relations with that country." 2381:and duplicating the text in 4 biographies? -- 336:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 8: 4677:list of Iceland-related deletion discussions 2580:to make inter-nation relations notable, and 590:list of Iceland-related deletion discussions 4703:list of Mexico-related deletion discussions 2300:what teams are traditional rivals, or read 616:list of Mexico-related deletion discussions 4697: 4671: 4645: 4495:several secondary sources in the article. 610: 584: 310:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 56:, so "200 choose two" is 19 900 articles. 3515:sources? even discounting the other ten, 564:Learn how to indent Richard please. it's 4701:: This debate has been included in the 4675:: This debate has been included in the 4649:: This debate has been included in the 2129:Let me address these issues directly: -- 947:Unlike yesterday, has more information. 614:: This debate has been included in the 588:: This debate has been included in the 330:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 2149:speech and a photograph of the meeting. 1956:Knowledge (XXG) has no rule concerning 130: 3034:. Referenced historical material. -- 1734:We have intersection articles such as 1511:Your argument is a fallacy called the 965:don't see how this argument addresses 2676:Clearly notable topic with plenty of 52:correct number can be found by using 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 4821: 4376:Sorry, that's a straw-man argument. 2911:Dream Focus, you may wish to review 2347:, not necessarily the notability of 1207:Knowledge (XXG):CANVASS#Votestacking 4049:), and I'll gladly vote to keep. - 3125:. That threshold isn't met here. - 2908:a reason to hold off from deletion. 2856:Your fallacious argument is called 129: 4917:(My discussion with Yilloslime at 2738:nothing about bilateral relations. 24: 4854:Note to whoever closes this thing 4289:Journal of Latin American Studies 3936:- It's all said above. Yikes. - 3212:So it is notable enough to be in 2146:The article uses primary sources. 4822: 4755:arguments of the delete ones. -- 4335:Mexico – United States relations 4126:"Undoubtedly" encyclopedic? Has 4047:Brazil – United States relations 2306:Russia – United States relations 2069:. Some are primary sources, e.g 289: 4546:. The information uncovered by 4282:I concede that the ambassador ( 3121:My criterion isn't drama, it's 2282:" should say 4 of 4th or last. 2280:European Free Trade Association 2187:European Free Trade Association 2162:Organizacion Editorial Mexicana 2014:European Free Trade Association 989:Samoa – United States relations 4511:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 4479:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 4459:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 4402:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 4364:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 4192:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 4155:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 4070:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 3866:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 3730:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 3484:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 3414:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 3286:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 3272:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 3234:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 3218:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2942:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2862:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2760:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2655:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2653:would be synthesis. Cheers. -- 2613:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2511:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2479:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2383:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2326:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2310:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2193:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2131:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2111:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2107:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2040:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1988:"there's just no there, there" 1966:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1903:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1820:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1760:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1607:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1517:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1451:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1311:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1261:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1243:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1194:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1131:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1037:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 918:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 656:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 542:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 484:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1: 4746:: Thoroughly sourced, passes 4313:brown peoples are not notable 2152:Deriding a fact by saying it 1896:Here is the nominated version 1860:this one is much weaker than 326:on the part of others and to 3858:Foreign relations of Iceland 3824:Foreign relations of Iceland 3691:Foreign relations of Iceland 3648:File:Iceland-Mexico 2008.png 3214:Foreign relations of Iceland 3142:Foreign relations of Iceland 2375:Foreign relations of Iceland 2345:Foreign relations of Iceland 2262:example is a true classical 1666:To develop Tarc's argument, 1370:Foreign relations of Iceland 704:Foreign relations of Iceland 409:Foreign relations of Iceland 3886:Foreign relations of Mexico 3854:Foreign relations of Mexico 3820:Foreign relations of Mexico 3687:Foreign relations of Mexico 3146:Foreign relations of Mexico 2371:Foreign relations of Mexico 2341:Foreign relations of Mexico 1960:, only an essay concerning 1677:Anniston-Grant relationship 1374:Foreign relations of Mexico 914:Foreign relations of Mexico 708:Foreign relations of Mexico 413:Foreign relations of Mexico 5012: 4008:is a blocked sock puppet. 3449:Canada - Iceland relations 3444:Canada - Iceland relations 3410:Canada - Iceland relations 2276:Canada – Iceland relations 2220:Canada – Iceland relations 2179:Canada – Iceland relations 1862:Croatia–Mongolia relations 1740:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen 540:argument was presented. -- 3560:Absolutely correct! Even 2605:to advance a new position 2450:this !vote was canvassed 4988:Please do not modify it. 4978:04:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 4961:04:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 4931:13:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 4913:05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 4896:04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 4878:01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 4843:13:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 4816:00:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 4800:00:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 4770:00:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 4739:17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4718:10:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4692:10:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4666:09:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4641:04:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4624:03:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4591:02:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4560:23:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4519:02:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4505:01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4487:00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4467:01:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4453:00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4429:23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4410:01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4395:00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4372:21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4349:21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4329:19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4298:00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4278:23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4243:00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4231:23:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4200:08:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4183:00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4163:21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4141:21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4122:19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4093:00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 4078:21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4056:21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 4018:15:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3996:10:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3976:07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3959:07:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3946:06:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3921:06:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3903:06:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3874:18:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3836:05:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3809:05:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3786:21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3774:01:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3758:00:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3738:15:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3719:14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3703:14:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3676:15:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3659:09:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3626:23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3604:00:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3586:08:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3554:07:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3533:07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3492:15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3461:13:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3422:05:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3382:21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3359:02:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3345:04:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3334:04:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3317:01:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3294:05:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3280:05:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3262:04:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3242:01:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3226:01:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3200:01:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3158:02:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 3132:00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 3117:23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3102:21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3074:05:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3056:04:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 3044:23:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 3027:23:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 3002:22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2977:21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 2950:18:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2925:18:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2870:18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 2838:22:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2814:17:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2795:17:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2768:21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 2748:17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2729:15:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2711:14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2694:17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2663:21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2639:17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2621:17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2594:16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2545:23:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 2519:15:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2499:21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2487:17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2463:16:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2443:16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2425:15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2391:19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 2361:23:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 2349:Iceland-Mexico relations 2334:02:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 2318:19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 2302:Blood in the Water match 2292:16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2201:17:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2139:14:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2119:15:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2098:06:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2048:17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2026:03:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2000:15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1984:Poland–Ukraine relations 1974:19:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 1948:03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1911:18:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1869:14:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1853:14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1828:18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 1797:03:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 1768:18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 1718:05:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1689:23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1662:20:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1648:19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1615:00:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 1595:13:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1576:10:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1525:18:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1499:09:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1459:01:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1432:06:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1405:05:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1386:05:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1357:05:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1342:12:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 1319:21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1296:03:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1269:17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1251:21:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1237:15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1222:15:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1202:15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1179:04:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1121:18:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1106:13:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1082:23:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 1065:22:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1045:19:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 1019:03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1003:17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 983:06:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 959:04:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 926:01:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 908:05:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 879:03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 863:19:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 834:06:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 816:05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 749:04:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 715:04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 693:17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 664:18:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 631:15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 605:15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 578:00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 550:02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 520:12:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 492:06:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 468:13:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 451:10:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 425:09:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 282:07:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 148:Iceland–Mexico relations 123:Iceland–Mexico relations 117:16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 4744:Strongest possible keep 3768:she needn't bother. -- 3644:Monaco–Russia relations 3138:International relations 3061:International relations 3009:Meets the standards of 1958:inherent non-notability 1758:and over 100 others. -- 1748:Category:Celebrity duos 798:01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 368:; accounts blocked for 338:single-purpose accounts 308:policies and guidelines 68:interest. A few of the 4860:(though certainly not 3085:Israel–Syria relations 2858:reduction to absurdity 407:Having entries on the 128:AfDs for this article: 4966:Note to closing admin 4596:CLOSE AS NO CONSENSUS 4284:a political scientist 3891:Sino-Indian relations 2937:2003 invasion of Iraq 2448:Note to closing admin 2075:(word count = 34) or 1449:permutations work. -- 1128:Note to closing admin 435:DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) 4548:User:MichaelQSchmidt 822:consensus can change 3693:articles unwieldy. 2272:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1962:inherent notability 1025:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1008:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 320:by counting votes. 299:not a majority vote 107:consensus" result. 4620: 3013:IMHO, contains 14 2308:, I don't know. -- 2212:Mexico report the 1752:Anniston and Grant 1069:Please do not use 44:The result was 4873: 4720: 4715: 4706: 4694: 4689: 4680: 4668: 4663: 4654: 4614: 4557: 4451: 4393: 4347: 4315:variety. Well, 4296: 4275: 4241: 4228: 4181: 4139: 4119: 4091: 4054: 4006:User:Comfort shoe 3784: 3650:likely fails the 3521:User:VernoWhitney 3380: 3343: 3250: 3130: 3100: 3054: 2975: 2923: 2154:adds little value 2093: 1668:Jennifer Anniston 1217: 1174: 1143:) has engaged in 633: 619: 607: 593: 401: 400: 397: 324:assume good faith 114: 5003: 4990: 4871: 4838: 4832: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4765: 4759: 4736: 4735: 4713: 4707: 4687: 4681: 4661: 4655: 4637: 4618: 4588: 4581: 4574: 4555: 4450: 4392: 4346: 4295: 4272: 4270: 4240: 4225: 4223: 4180: 4138: 4116: 4114: 4090: 4053: 3957: 3938:Peregrine Fisher 3783: 3578:East of Borschov 3566:East of Borschov 3525:East of Borschov 3379: 3342: 3248: 3129: 3099: 3083:mean that, when 3053: 3024: 2974: 2922: 2828: 2808: 2790: 2779:Disclosure note: 2685: 2582:reliable sources 2496: 2298:World Cup Soccer 2261: 2243: 2214:Eyjafjallajokull 2156:or saying it is 2091: 1736:Martin and Lewis 1714: 1711: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1699: 1644: 1641: 1638: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1603:reliable sources 1568: 1422: 1354: 1215: 1172: 1118: 1079: 1060: 1057: 998: 995: 954: 951: 904: 901: 898: 895: 892: 889: 859: 856: 853: 850: 847: 844: 794: 791: 788: 785: 782: 779: 774: 771: 768: 765: 762: 745: 742: 739: 736: 733: 730: 620: 594: 448: 447:(What I've done) 442: 436: 395: 383: 367: 351: 332: 302:, but instead a 293: 286: 262: 261: 247: 199: 189: 171: 112: 34: 5011: 5010: 5006: 5005: 5004: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4993:deletion review 4986: 4876: 4836: 4835: 4830: 4823: 4763: 4762: 4757: 4729: 4728: 4633: 4631:per nomination 4616: 4584: 4577: 4570: 4268: 4221: 4112: 3955: 3795:, I agree with 3309:Robert Brockway 3020: 2834: 2824: 2818:I could make a 2804: 2786: 2683: 2562:Further comment 2494: 2234: 2218: 2096: 1712: 1709: 1706: 1703: 1700: 1697: 1642: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1566: 1428: 1418: 1352: 1220: 1177: 1114: 1075: 1058: 1055: 996: 993: 952: 949: 902: 899: 896: 893: 890: 887: 857: 854: 851: 848: 845: 842: 792: 789: 786: 783: 780: 777: 772: 769: 766: 763: 760: 743: 740: 737: 734: 731: 728: 712:Good Ol’factory 446: 440: 434: 385: 373: 357: 341: 328:sign your posts 204: 195: 162: 146: 143: 126: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5009: 5007: 4998: 4997: 4981: 4980: 4963: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4915: 4899: 4898: 4888:DustFormsWords 4881: 4880: 4868: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4833: 4803: 4802: 4792:DustFormsWords 4773: 4772: 4760: 4753:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 4741: 4721: 4695: 4669: 4643: 4626: 4607: 4600:DustFormsWords 4593: 4562: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4491:My bad, there 4416: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4397: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 3999: 3998: 3961: 3960: 3948: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3913:DustFormsWords 3906: 3905: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3839: 3838: 3828:DustFormsWords 3812: 3811: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3761: 3760: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3706: 3705: 3679: 3678: 3662: 3661: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3618:DustFormsWords 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3557: 3556: 3536: 3535: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3319: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3203: 3202: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3092: 3029: 3004: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2928: 2927: 2916: 2909: 2898: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2832: 2797: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2732: 2731: 2713: 2696: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2642: 2641: 2624: 2623: 2609:a new position 2597: 2596: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2466: 2465: 2445: 2427: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2353:DustFormsWords 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2182: 2175: 2165: 2150: 2122: 2121: 2100: 2088: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2029: 2028: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1951: 1950: 1940:DustFormsWords 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1872: 1871: 1855: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1789:DustFormsWords 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1681:DustFormsWords 1618: 1617: 1598: 1597: 1579: 1578: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1513:slippery slope 1502: 1501: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1435: 1434: 1426: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1397:DustFormsWords 1389: 1388: 1378:DustFormsWords 1359: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1253: 1212: 1182: 1181: 1169: 1124: 1123: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1047: 962: 961: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 881: 752: 751: 718: 717: 696: 695: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 635: 634: 608: 581: 580: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 471: 470: 453: 427: 399: 398: 294: 265: 264: 201: 197:AfD statistics 142: 141: 140: 135: 127: 125: 120: 104: 103: 100: 97: 94: 91: 88: 85: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5008: 4996: 4994: 4989: 4983: 4982: 4979: 4975: 4971: 4967: 4964: 4962: 4958: 4954: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4939: 4938: 4932: 4928: 4924: 4920: 4916: 4914: 4910: 4906: 4901: 4900: 4897: 4893: 4889: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4879: 4875: 4874: 4867: 4863: 4859: 4855: 4852: 4851: 4844: 4841: 4839: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4813: 4809: 4805: 4804: 4801: 4797: 4793: 4789: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4771: 4768: 4766: 4754: 4749: 4745: 4742: 4740: 4737: 4734: 4733: 4725: 4722: 4719: 4716: 4711: 4704: 4700: 4696: 4693: 4690: 4685: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4667: 4664: 4659: 4652: 4648: 4644: 4642: 4639: 4636: 4630: 4627: 4625: 4622: 4619: 4611: 4608: 4605: 4601: 4597: 4594: 4592: 4589: 4587: 4582: 4580: 4575: 4573: 4566: 4563: 4561: 4558: 4553: 4549: 4545: 4542: 4541: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4502: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4464: 4460: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4449: 4444: 4440: 4436: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4426: 4422: 4417: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4398: 4396: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4379: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4350: 4345: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4310: 4307: 4299: 4294: 4290: 4285: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4276: 4274: 4271: 4264: 4260: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4244: 4239: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4229: 4227: 4224: 4217: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4190:standard. -- 4188: 4184: 4179: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4142: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4120: 4118: 4115: 4107: 4104: 4103: 4094: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4057: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4039: 4037: 4033: 4028: 4025: 4024: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3986: 3984: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3966: 3958: 3956:Pineapple Fez 3952: 3949: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3932: 3931: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3887: 3883: 3882: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3799:'s opinion.-- 3798: 3794: 3791: 3787: 3782: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3771: 3766: 3763: 3762: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3707: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3681: 3680: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3664: 3663: 3660: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3645: 3640: 3637: 3636: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3558: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3511: 3510: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3445: 3441: 3440: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3383: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3341: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3320: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3303: 3302: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3175: 3174: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3098: 3093: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3062: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3052: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3030: 3028: 3025: 3023: 3022:White Shadows 3016: 3012: 3008: 3005: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2988: 2987: 2978: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2926: 2921: 2917: 2914: 2910: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2885: 2884: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2839: 2836: 2835: 2829: 2827: 2821: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2812: 2809: 2807: 2801: 2798: 2796: 2793: 2791: 2789: 2783: 2780: 2777: 2776: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2740:Bali ultimate 2736: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2717: 2714: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2697: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2686: 2679: 2675: 2672: 2671: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2643: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2560: 2559: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2500: 2497: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2449: 2446: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2428: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2417: 2411: 2408: 2407: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2242: 2238: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2215: 2210: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2188: 2183: 2180: 2176: 2173: 2169: 2166: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2101: 2099: 2095: 2094: 2087: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2058: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2010: 2007: 2006: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1932: 1931: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1901: 1897: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1856: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1845:Shooterwalker 1842: 1839: 1838: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1719: 1716: 1715: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1646: 1645: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1599: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1570: 1569: 1562: 1559: 1556: 1554: 1551: 1548: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1536: 1535: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1500: 1497: 1496:Jack Merridew 1494:? Sincerely, 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1474: 1473: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1433: 1430: 1429: 1423: 1421: 1415: 1412: 1411: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1360: 1358: 1355: 1349: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1286: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1180: 1176: 1175: 1168: 1163: 1159: 1157: 1155: 1153: 1151: 1149: 1146: 1145:WP:CANVASSing 1142: 1139: 1136: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1117: 1116:White Shadows 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1083: 1080: 1078: 1077:White Shadows 1072: 1071:WP:OTHERSTUFF 1068: 1067: 1066: 1063: 1061: 1052: 1048: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1009: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1001: 999: 990: 986: 985: 984: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 963: 960: 957: 955: 946: 943: 942: 927: 923: 919: 915: 911: 910: 909: 906: 905: 882: 880: 876: 872: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 861: 860: 837: 836: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 818: 817: 813: 809: 805: 801: 800: 799: 796: 795: 759: 754: 753: 750: 747: 746: 723: 720: 719: 716: 713: 709: 705: 701: 698: 697: 694: 690: 686: 682: 679: 678: 665: 661: 657: 652: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 632: 628: 624: 617: 613: 609: 606: 602: 598: 591: 587: 583: 582: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 551: 547: 543: 539: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 517: 513: 509: 493: 489: 485: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 469: 465: 461: 457: 454: 452: 449: 443: 437: 431: 428: 426: 422: 418: 414: 410: 406: 403: 402: 393: 389: 381: 377: 371: 365: 361: 355: 349: 345: 339: 335: 331: 329: 325: 319: 315: 314: 309: 305: 301: 300: 295: 292: 288: 287: 284: 283: 279: 275: 271: 260: 256: 253: 250: 246: 242: 238: 235: 232: 229: 226: 223: 220: 217: 214: 210: 207: 206:Find sources: 202: 198: 193: 187: 183: 179: 175: 170: 166: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 144: 139: 136: 134: 131: 124: 121: 119: 118: 115: 110: 101: 98: 95: 92: 89: 86: 83: 79: 78: 77: 74: 71: 65: 61: 57: 55: 54:combinatorics 49: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 4987: 4984: 4965: 4940: 4870: 4861: 4857: 4853: 4788:homo sapiens 4743: 4731: 4730: 4723: 4698: 4672: 4646: 4632: 4628: 4609: 4595: 4585: 4578: 4571: 4564: 4543: 4492: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4338: 4308: 4288: 4266: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4219: 4131: 4127: 4110: 4105: 4026: 3988:Comfort shoe 3982: 3981: 3965:WP:JUSTAVOTE 3962: 3950: 3933: 3849: 3792: 3764: 3682: 3638: 3613: 3573: 3561: 3519:. Thanks to 3516: 3512: 3479: 3351:Doc Quintana 3326:Doc Quintana 3321: 3304: 3176: 3080: 3031: 3021: 3006: 2989: 2905: 2900:MarshalN20, 2894: 2886: 2831: 2825: 2805: 2799: 2787: 2778: 2734: 2733: 2715: 2698: 2681: 2673: 2650: 2646: 2608: 2604: 2577: 2569: 2566:relationship 2565: 2561: 2537:JamesBWatson 2532: 2528: 2447: 2435:FeydHuxtable 2429: 2414: 2409: 2366: 2267: 2217:your use of 2184: 2167: 2157: 2153: 2145: 2102: 2090: 2060: 2008: 1987: 1935: 1857: 1840: 1696: 1626: 1602: 1571: 1564: 1537: 1475: 1425: 1419: 1413: 1365: 1361: 1347: 1331: 1283: 1281: 1256: 1214: 1188: 1171: 1137: 1127: 1115: 1094: 1076: 1050: 944: 886: 841: 776: 757: 727: 721: 699: 680: 650: 611: 585: 537: 504: 455: 441:(talk to me) 429: 404: 391: 379: 370:sockpuppetry 363: 352:; suspected 347: 333: 321: 317: 311: 303: 297: 266: 254: 248: 240: 233: 227: 221: 215: 205: 105: 81: 75: 69: 66: 62: 58: 50: 46:no consensus 45: 43: 31: 28: 4732:Dr. Blofeld 4724:Strong keep 4216:WP:NOTPAPER 4086:, maybe? - 4043:this source 4010:Niteshift36 3850:even larger 3596:Niteshift36 3546:Niteshift36 3007:Strong Keep 2994:Niteshift36 2758:notable. -- 2703:Pantherskin 2651:not notable 2430:Strong Keep 2367:even larger 1488:polar bears 1190:disruptive. 231:free images 4866:Yilloslime 4448:Biruitorul 4390:Biruitorul 4344:Biruitorul 4293:Biruitorul 4238:Biruitorul 4178:Biruitorul 4173:WP:SOURCES 4136:Biruitorul 4088:Biruitorul 4051:Biruitorul 4045:describes 3781:Biruitorul 3377:Biruitorul 3340:Biruitorul 3127:Biruitorul 3097:Biruitorul 3051:Biruitorul 2972:Biruitorul 2920:Biruitorul 2806:MarshalN20 2086:Yilloslime 1936:inherently 1756:Brangelina 1672:Hugh Grant 1210:Yilloslime 1167:Yilloslime 1033:precedence 1029:precedence 722:Keep again 304:discussion 4443:WP:BURDEN 4439:WP:NOTDIR 4382:Of course 4378:Of course 3797:Mattinbgn 3770:Mattinbgn 3375:, etc. - 3150:SmokeyJoe 3109:SmokeyJoe 3066:SmokeyJoe 3036:SmokeyJoe 2913:WP:BURDEN 2264:straw man 1858:Weak keep 1652:Routine. 1023:Remember 623:• Gene93k 597:• Gene93k 566:straw man 508:straw man 460:Mandsford 417:Savonneux 360:canvassed 354:canvassed 313:consensus 109:Sjakkalle 4970:Oakshade 4953:Oakshade 4947:and its 4923:Milowent 4905:Milowent 4862:required 4579:Squadron 4497:Novickas 4421:Novickas 4030:dither. 3895:Milowent 3862:Rat Pack 3801:Milowent 3695:Novickas 3656:Russavia 3185:Bicycles 3089:this one 2895:surmised 2574:WP:SYNTH 2379:Rat Pack 2343:and the 1744:Rat Pack 1567:Schmidt, 1257:ex parte 1141:contribs 392:username 386:{{subst: 380:username 374:{{subst: 364:username 358:{{subst: 348:username 342:{{subst: 270:WP:SYNTH 192:View log 113:(Check!) 4945:WP:NOTE 4858:awesome 4808:LibStar 4780:science 4635:SPLETTE 4435:WP:PSTS 4339:as such 4321:Bearian 4167:Again, 4032:Carrite 3968:LibStar 3750:LibStar 3711:LibStar 3668:LibStar 3652:WP:NFCC 3639:Neutral 3453:LibStar 3018:them.-- 2721:Collect 2684:Lugnuts 2647:notable 2495:AniMate 2455:LibStar 2284:LibStar 2237:protect 2232:history 2158:padding 2018:LibStar 2009:Comment 1541:Iceland 1484:Iceland 1353:AniMate 1334:LibStar 1288:LibStar 1098:LibStar 1051:have to 1011:LibStar 975:LibStar 871:LibStar 826:LibStar 808:LibStar 804:notable 570:LibStar 512:LibStar 356:users: 274:LibStar 237:WP refs 225:scholar 165:protect 160:history 70:diehard 4949:WP:GNG 4748:WP:GNG 4629:Delete 4565:Delete 4317:Mexico 4169:WP:GNG 4084:WP:GNG 4004:Note: 3614:aren't 3254:Edison 3192:Edison 3177:Delete 3015:WP:RSs 2990:Delete 2891:WP:GNG 2887:Delete 2820:pretty 2735:Delete 2716:Delete 2578:happen 2533:do not 2241:delete 2061:Delete 1841:Delete 1492:Mexico 1486:? The 1476:delete 1414:Delete 1362:Delete 1348:Delete 971:WP:GNG 700:Delete 681:Delete 456:Delete 430:Delete 405:Delete 209:Google 169:delete 4784:Earth 4586:Raven 4027:Keep. 3983:Keep. 3951:KEEP! 2966:, or 2962:, or 2958:, or 2678:WP:RS 2421:talk 2258:views 2250:watch 2246:links 1713:Focus 1643:Focus 1059:hotch 997:hotch 953:hotch 903:Focus 858:Focus 820:also 793:Focus 744:Focus 651:exact 334:Note: 252:JSTOR 213:books 186:views 178:watch 174:links 82:there 16:< 4974:talk 4957:talk 4941:Keep 4927:talk 4909:talk 4892:talk 4831:Cycl 4812:talk 4796:talk 4758:Cycl 4714:ping 4710:Pcap 4699:Note 4688:ping 4684:Pcap 4673:Note 4662:ping 4658:Pcap 4647:Note 4610:Keep 4604:talk 4572:Blue 4556:ping 4552:Pcap 4544:Keep 4515:talk 4501:talk 4483:talk 4463:talk 4433:See 4425:talk 4406:talk 4368:talk 4325:talk 4309:Keep 4257:ever 4251:Has 4196:talk 4159:talk 4132:ever 4106:Keep 4074:talk 4036:talk 4014:talk 3992:talk 3972:talk 3942:talk 3934:Keep 3917:talk 3899:talk 3870:talk 3856:and 3832:talk 3822:and 3805:talk 3793:Keep 3765:Keep 3754:talk 3734:talk 3715:talk 3699:talk 3689:and 3683:Keep 3672:talk 3654:. -- 3622:talk 3600:talk 3582:talk 3574:when 3570:talk 3550:talk 3529:talk 3517:keep 3513:Four 3488:talk 3480:will 3457:talk 3418:talk 3355:talk 3330:talk 3322:Keep 3313:talk 3305:Keep 3290:talk 3276:talk 3258:talk 3238:talk 3222:talk 3196:talk 3183:and 3181:Fish 3154:talk 3144:and 3113:talk 3070:talk 3040:talk 3032:Keep 3011:WP:N 2998:talk 2968:this 2964:this 2960:this 2956:this 2946:talk 2902:WP:N 2866:talk 2826:Reyk 2800:Keep 2788:xeno 2764:talk 2744:talk 2725:talk 2707:talk 2699:Keep 2690:talk 2674:Keep 2659:talk 2635:talk 2631:Tarc 2617:talk 2590:talk 2586:Tarc 2541:talk 2515:talk 2483:talk 2459:talk 2439:talk 2410:Keep 2387:talk 2373:and 2357:talk 2351:. - 2330:talk 2314:talk 2288:talk 2254:logs 2228:talk 2224:edit 2197:talk 2177:See 2135:talk 2115:talk 2103:Keep 2044:talk 2022:talk 1996:talk 1992:Tarc 1970:talk 1944:talk 1907:talk 1898:and 1849:talk 1824:talk 1793:talk 1764:talk 1742:and 1738:and 1685:talk 1670:and 1658:talk 1654:Tarc 1611:talk 1591:talk 1587:Tarc 1538:Keep 1521:talk 1515:. -- 1480:corn 1455:talk 1420:Reyk 1401:talk 1382:talk 1372:and 1338:talk 1315:talk 1292:talk 1265:talk 1259:. -- 1247:talk 1233:talk 1229:Tarc 1198:talk 1162:this 1135:talk 1102:talk 1041:talk 1035:. -- 1015:talk 979:talk 967:WP:N 945:Keep 922:talk 916:. -- 875:talk 830:talk 812:talk 706:and 689:talk 685:Tarc 660:talk 627:talk 612:Note 601:talk 586:Note 574:talk 546:talk 516:talk 488:talk 464:talk 421:talk 411:and 278:talk 245:FENS 219:news 182:logs 156:talk 152:edit 4951:.-- 4837:pia 4786:or 4764:pia 4708:-- 4682:-- 4656:-- 4617:Ray 4493:are 4386:not 4265:. - 4253:any 4128:any 3562:two 3081:not 2906:not 2833:YO! 2784:. – 2649:or 2570:are 2416:DGG 2268:TWO 2081:or 1490:of 1482:to 1427:YO! 969:or 621:-- 595:-- 538:one 388:csp 384:or 376:csm 344:spa 318:not 259:TWL 194:• 190:– ( 4976:) 4959:) 4929:) 4911:) 4894:) 4814:) 4798:) 4782:, 4705:. 4679:. 4653:. 4638::] 4568:-- 4517:) 4503:) 4485:) 4465:) 4427:) 4408:) 4400:-- 4370:) 4327:) 4198:) 4161:) 4076:) 4038:) 4016:) 3994:) 3974:) 3963:" 3953:-- 3944:) 3919:) 3901:) 3872:) 3852:? 3834:) 3807:) 3772:\ 3756:) 3736:) 3728:-- 3717:) 3701:) 3674:) 3624:) 3602:) 3584:) 3552:) 3531:) 3490:) 3459:) 3420:) 3371:, 3367:, 3357:) 3332:) 3315:) 3292:) 3278:) 3260:) 3240:) 3224:) 3198:) 3156:) 3140:, 3115:) 3072:) 3042:) 3000:) 2948:) 2868:) 2810:| 2766:) 2746:) 2727:) 2709:) 2692:) 2680:. 2661:) 2637:) 2619:) 2592:) 2543:) 2517:) 2485:) 2461:) 2453:. 2441:) 2423:) 2389:) 2369:? 2359:) 2332:) 2316:) 2290:) 2256:| 2252:| 2248:| 2244:| 2239:| 2235:| 2230:| 2226:| 2199:) 2189:". 2137:) 2117:) 2109:-- 2046:) 2024:) 1998:) 1990:. 1972:) 1946:) 1909:) 1866:TM 1851:) 1826:) 1818:-- 1795:) 1766:) 1750:. 1687:) 1660:) 1613:) 1593:) 1523:) 1457:) 1403:) 1384:) 1340:) 1317:) 1294:) 1267:) 1249:) 1235:) 1200:) 1147:: 1104:) 1056:Tb 1043:) 1017:) 994:Tb 981:) 973:. 950:Tb 924:) 877:) 832:) 814:) 710:. 691:) 662:) 654:-- 629:) 618:. 603:) 592:. 576:) 548:) 518:) 490:) 466:) 423:) 394:}} 382:}} 372:: 366:}} 350:}} 340:: 280:) 272:. 239:) 184:| 180:| 176:| 172:| 167:| 163:| 158:| 154:| 4972:( 4955:( 4933:) 4925:( 4907:( 4890:( 4872:C 4834:o 4810:( 4794:( 4761:o 4606:) 4602:( 4513:( 4499:( 4481:( 4461:( 4423:( 4404:( 4366:( 4323:( 4269:M 4222:M 4194:( 4157:( 4113:M 4072:( 4034:( 4012:( 3990:( 3970:( 3940:( 3915:( 3897:( 3868:( 3830:( 3803:( 3752:( 3732:( 3713:( 3697:( 3670:( 3620:( 3598:( 3580:( 3568:( 3548:( 3527:( 3486:( 3455:( 3416:( 3353:( 3328:( 3311:( 3288:( 3274:( 3256:( 3236:( 3220:( 3194:( 3152:( 3111:( 3068:( 3038:( 2996:( 2944:( 2864:( 2762:( 2742:( 2723:( 2705:( 2688:( 2657:( 2633:( 2615:( 2588:( 2539:( 2513:( 2481:( 2457:( 2437:( 2419:( 2385:( 2355:( 2328:( 2312:( 2286:( 2260:) 2222:( 2195:( 2133:( 2113:( 2092:C 2066:, 2042:( 2020:( 1994:( 1968:( 1942:( 1847:( 1822:( 1791:( 1762:( 1710:m 1707:a 1704:e 1701:r 1698:D 1683:( 1656:( 1640:m 1637:a 1634:e 1631:r 1628:D 1609:( 1589:( 1519:( 1453:( 1399:( 1380:( 1368:( 1336:( 1313:( 1290:( 1263:( 1245:( 1231:( 1216:C 1196:( 1173:C 1138:· 1133:( 1100:( 1039:( 1013:( 977:( 920:( 900:m 897:a 894:e 891:r 888:D 873:( 855:m 852:a 849:e 846:r 843:D 828:( 810:( 790:m 787:a 784:e 781:r 778:D 773:♫ 770:♫ 767:♫ 764:♫ 761:♫ 741:m 738:a 735:e 732:r 729:D 687:( 658:( 625:( 599:( 572:( 544:( 514:( 486:( 462:( 444:| 438:| 419:( 396:. 390:| 378:| 362:| 346:| 276:( 263:) 255:· 249:· 241:· 234:· 228:· 222:· 216:· 211:( 203:( 200:) 188:) 150:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index