Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbados–France relations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Barbados–France relations

Barbados–France relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Another non-notable set of relations: OMG, french companies buy shit from barbadian companies! Hold the press! They don't even have embassies dedicated to each nation. Another Country X-Country Y relations page. No notability here, and nothing to justify a seperate article - they don't even have embassies with each other, although diplomatic missions are stationed in nearby nations. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Hint Barbados has diplomatic ties with 103 countries around the world yet there's no way they support 103 embassies. There is something called Foreign accreditation. It is the same thing the U.S., Britain, and Canada does in the Caribbean. The have a single embassy or high commission that also concurrently administers other areas. The "No embassy is there" is a weak argument. CaribDigita (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• With some weariness, I want to note that I could probably predict the names of a dozen people who'll take part in this AfD and I can predict how they'll !vote, too. I also want to note that I'd expect a somewhat more collegial tone to the nomination from an editor of Ironholds' experience, though I sympathise with his apparent frustration with this article series.

  I think there's insufficient material here to justify a separate article, and I don't believe an in-depth treatment of this subject could be written given the very limited sources available, so I'm going to go with delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think that came out a bit ruder than I intended, I simply meant sarcasm rather than highly offensive sarcasm. I'll redact. Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep unlike some other articles of this set, this one seems to show real, referenceable relations between the two countries. This google search shows third-party discussions of some tax treaties between France and Barbados. Additionally, France has a long history with many Carribean nations, and not just its own colonies. Unlike some of the other random possibilities (like, just for kicks, lets say "Bhutan - Suriname relations" or something) this one has at least minimal potential to meet WP:N criteria. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I had a quick look at the Google search posted by Jayron32 and failed to find third-party specific discussion of tax treaties between these two countries. I accept they exist, but until sources are posted to verify the notability of the relations, the best strategy is to delete this stub. If sufficient material is found to justify an article on the relations between Barbados and France, another article can easily be created (but perhaps it should be about relations between France and the region?). The current article includes "The bilateral relations and trade between the two nations remain very modest." Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: You'll not find anything at search engine. Most of the Caribbean newspapers have added their newspapers to the exemption list of Google robots. CaribDigita (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment/Question - Is there a specific policy or guideline of what constitutes notability for these kinds of articles? At first I was going to vote for delete (that is not a vote), but considered that students, for example, often have to write essays detailing trade and other relations between two countries. If the information is of the kind that people may want to research, that speaks to an inherent notability. Matt Deres (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The only applicable guideline is the general notability guidelines. Wikiproject Foreign Relations also has its own guidelines here, but these have not been approved by the wikipedia community at large (as far as know). Yilloslime ^T_C 00:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The above box is not a template in normal use, and was added by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).

• Keep and cleanup a bit. I will help. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep there is no present policy--we are making it by our decisions here. I think that any relations between France and any Caribbean nation is notable, because of th historical connections. DGG (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The original wording of the nomination should have been sufficient. The relations are unremarkable, and in some cases of the text, not even relevant, as they involve talks between two blocs of countries. No overview of the article topic's notability provided. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The presently applicable policy is the general notability guidelines which require a topic to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" before WP can have an article on it. At present, this sources cited in this article are 2 government websites which fail the "independent" part of the GNG, and 6 articles that discuss multilateral relations between Caricom and the EU. The only mention of Barbados-France bilateral relations in all those articles is this: "The Government of Barbados will, however, continue the negotiations already underway with the Government of France to conclude an agreement which would remove the visa requirement for Barbadians traveling to the French territories in the Caribbean."[1] This is hardly significant coverage in multiple sources, and the source actually Barbados Ministry of Foreign affairs, so it's not even independent. I've looked for sources on my own that would satisfy WP:N and not found anything. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also the attempted plot by one Barbadian and a group of French mercenaries during the 1970-1980s to overthrow the Government in Barbados and form the country of "The Commonwealth of Barbados and Dominica".(Tull: Tell us about coup rumours, NationNews, 04 October 2006) The U.S. CIA I believe disrupted the plot. CaribDigita (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete there is an evolving guideline for this stuff, and this is clearly below threshold. Eusebeus (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTCASE. With nearly 200 countries in the world, you are looking at nearly 20,000 such articles. Sebwite (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Checkuser confirmed sock. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, Above users only edits have been to vote "Keep" on AfD's, and remove ProD's. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete to quote the article "The bilateral relatoins between france and barabados remain very modest." The next sentence goes on to note that french companies have at times exported electronics and paper to barbados. Not even an ambassadorial exchange here.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't recognize the need for a de minimis relationship, only a notable and verifiable one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Even the article itself calls the bilateral and trade relationships "moderate". Moderate isn't notable. Moderate is run of the mill. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.