Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Barbados 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. Onetwo three... 09:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia–Barbados relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

the awarding of an oil contract does not in itself mean notable relations between the countries. in any case, it should be reported here Economy_of_Barbados. the fact that Australia moved its embassy off Barbados says something about the notability of relations. The Aust govt also notes that Barbados is Australia's 134th biggest trading partner. and there isn't any other relations except on the cricket field. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not fulfill the requirements of WP:N. Should relations between Australia and Barbados become significant at some point in the future, an article can be started at that time.  Until then, pffft. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Excellent article with excellent sources. Absence of an embassy is a red herring, the US doesn't have one in Iran and doesn't have one in Cuba. And oddly enough this article also includes a sporting relationship. it is not just about diplomacy.
 * doesn't the recent moving of an embassy say something? US doesn't have embassies in Iran and Cuba for vastly different reasons. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * News is news is news. If a media outlet chose to write about the moving of the embassy, it, by that same fact is notable. That is the definition of notability, when the media takes notice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * and widely reported. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Widely" is for notability, not verifiability. No one is suggesting the the moving of the embassy should be a Wikipedia topic as a stand-alone article. It verifies a fact in this article.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's contrived. What is being debated here is the notability of the relations topic, as per LibStar. The "trivia + trivia = notable" formula supposed to "address" and "satisfy" that notability is a remarkably counterproductive form of special pleading. Dahn (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivia is a subjective term used to denigrate what one personally dislikes. Newspapers publish news, it is perceived as trivia by people with closed minds. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the sporting relationship is more Australia and West Indies not Australia and Barbados. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles into the diplomacy of articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks.  Ikip (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced article that meets the standards of notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of independent sources discussing the relationship as such; surely the oil bit can be covered elsewhere. - Biruitorul Talk 15:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is notable. Just needs expansionDr. Blofeld (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, unsourcable if properly researched - instead of the desperate attempt to expand it by the chaotic addition of trivia. In fact, the letter process has also made it nonsensical and unreasonable. Dahn (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge The bilateral articles into one Foreign relations of country X by country article per country. Edison (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources in the article all refer to the fact that Australia moved its high commission away from Barbados to another place because. Not because of a diplomatic dust up or anything, just because there was nothing much important going on between the two.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. This campaign against bilateral relations articles is becoming a farce when articles like this one are put up for deletion. The article is referenced, contains encyclopedic material and meets the general notability guideline. No valid reason, based on relevant policy or guidelines, was given in the nomination, merely an expanded version of IDONTLIKEIT. The two nations share a common colonial background and interpersonal ties including dual citizens such as Gary Sobers. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment with respect, I don't see this nomination as a farce. I'll happily explain further. we could look at a number of things that makes relations notable, firstly, economic and trade, as the source I provide in the nomination shows that Barbados is 134th biggest trading partner, hardly notable. Secondly, we could look at diplomatic relations, non resident embassies, and it is important to note that Australia chose to relocate their embassy away from Barbados in recent years. there is as far as I know no bilateral agreements either. The Australian Dept of Foreign Affairs provides a country brief explaining history and bilateral relations on their website www.dfat.gov.au this is non existent for Barbados. Lastly there are cultural or other relations. there appears to be no significant migration between the countries, you mention Gary Sobers, one notable sportsperson that is a dual citizen doesn't cut it as some measure of notable relations. Australia has had a history of granting citzenship to highly talented sportspeople (esp. from Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union). and in the cricket context, it's more Australia and West Indies not Australia and Barbados. and as for WP:GNG, check the google news search I did, there is no significant coverage of bilateral relations. If there is, please show me some reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No coverage of the topic as a whole with regard to establishing notability among others. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  16:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, on the basis that there exists multiple articles discussing this relationship in reliable sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep - multiple sources demonstrate a notable relationship that meets WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 17:22, 16 May 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.