Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbados–Germany 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. This has turned into yet another deletionism vs. inclusionism battle, and there's simply no way to make an informed decision. We really need a more broad agreement to decide what to do with these articles. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Barbados–Germany relations

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

noting that neither country has resident embassies. the article uses synthesis to stretch out any actual bilateral relations. yes Barbados assisted the British in the World Wars, but this does not directly relate to Barbados-Germany relations. Even the German foreign ministry says most of its relations are in Barbados-EU context or Germany helping a block of Carribean nations. there's quite a bit of coverage of German golf players playing a tournament in Barbados and football relations but not much on actual ongoing bliateral relations. . LibStar (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; pretty unremarkable. -Falcon8765 (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator of this page User:CaribDigita was not told about this discussion on his talk page by the nominator. I have alerted him per WP:CIVIL.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This one is beyond a stub, and is notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "This one is beyond a stub.." is NOT a valid reason to keep so this opinion should be completely discounted. Drawn Some (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please Assume Good Faith and don't threaten people with having their opinions discounted. They come here to express them. Let the closing administrator decide what is valid and what is not valid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's absurd, Richard - no one's threatening anyone here. But "it's notable" is not, in fact, a valid "keep" rationale - see WP:ATA. (And yes, we know about WP:EANP, so I'm saving you the trouble of linking there.) - Biruitorul Talk 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the "threat"? I see an editor expressing his opinion, just like you did. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability of the topic of the article, relations between Barbados and Germany, is given, not one shred of evidence in the way of sources. In fact, about half the article is about relations between Barbados and the UK. This article is an absurd synthesis of unrelated factoids, most of which have nothing to do with Barbados-German relations.  Drawn Some (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may note that the article on the United States starts in the 1600s and not in 1776. The modern name of the country is not relevant. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What in the world does that have to do with relations between Germany and Barbados? More smokescreen?  Drawn Some (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF, I thought you were complaining that the article contains info when Barbados was still part of Britain, as during the wars.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Barbados and Germany were both part of Pangea so I guess under your strange logic that would make their relations notable. Drawn Some (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reductions to absurdity are fun but not helpful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - beyond the sole fact that relations exist (which can and doubtless is covered in the apposite articles), the recent expansion is trivial and fictitious. Trivial in that it accords attention to details (eg, the "Agreement between the Government of Barbados and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments" - well, it sounds important, at least) we would not bother mentioning outside "rescue" efforts done on this series of nonsense articles, just because we can (see WP:POINT for that); fictitious in that no, the actions of Barbadian men in the Imperial British Army, well before Barbadian independence in 1966, is not a function of "Barbados–Germany relations", and is not a manifestation of "historical ties", no matter how desperately some may wish to portray them that way. That history is probably notable, but you mention it at (the rather wretched) History of Barbados, at (the equally bad) Military of Barbados (where, by contrast, an avant la lettre section is appropriate), at Military history of the British West Indies during World War II, but not here, for reasons that should be obvious. - Biruitorul Talk 00:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may note that the article on the United States starts in the 1600s and not in 1776. It was still Barbados before independence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a red herring. Sure, the History of Barbados also begins a couple of thousand years ago. But "Barbados–Germany relations" began precisely in 1967. Colonies don't conduct foreign affairs, the FCO does. - Biruitorul Talk 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, no. That is when official government-to-government recognition began. Relations begin, well, whenever relations begin. The article is not "Barbados–Germany government relations". But you know all this already, we might as well just cut and paste the info from the last 10 AFDs, and put the new effort into working on articles. This is a good example of a wikigroan, where 10 times the effort goes into the AFD and talk pages than the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, relations begin when reliable sources say they begin, not when Richard Arthur Norton says so. And in the absence of sources actually dealing with "Barbados–Germany relations", your pretense that they started at some distant point before 1967 is what we call original research. - Biruitorul Talk 06:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Original research says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." (my emphasis added) Please don't just point to the Bible and says "the answer is here", quote a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gladly. You are claiming, without validation by sources that actually deal with "Barbados–Germany relations" (which happen not to exist), that a jumble of various out-of-context facts constitute a phenomenon. That's a new position unsubstantiated by anything. Relations are what a reliable source about those relations tells us they are, not what Richard Arthur Norton thinks they may be. - Biruitorul Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the article is not "Barbados–Germany government relations". History doesn't start with the current name or current government. The article on the US begins in the 1600s, and the article on India doesn't start in 1947. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are once again pulling a red herring. Yes, US and Indian history begin well before formal independence. It does not necessarily follow that "Barbados–Germany relations" begin prior to Barbadian independence. To repeat: relations begin when reliable sources say they begin, not when Richard Arthur Norton says so. Take two examples, US-Kuwaiti relations, 1961-1992 and The United States and Brazil. Now, since those books are actually written by scholars, not people inventing topics in silly Wikipedia "rescue" efforts, they happen to begin their treatments in one case at the exact point of independence (1961), and in the other roughly at that time ("almost two hundred years [ago]"). But let's say they'd decided to start earlier, maybe 1930 for Kuwait and 1800 for Brazil. Fine, we have a reliable source placing the beginning of relations then, so we can use that. But in the case of "Barbados–Germany relations" we have absolutely no such guidepost - only Richard Arthur Norton telling us his opinion about when said relations began. If you don't see the problem with that, I again encourage reading WP:NOR. - Biruitorul Talk 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Original research says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." (my emphasis added) Please don't just point to the Bible and says "the answer is here", quote a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard you the first time. Of course, no attempt to address my intelligent appeal to scholarly works that deal with observed phenomena (US-Kuwait and US-Brazil relations), standing in stark contrast to this topic you've just invented (hint: that's the OR) -- only bland repetition of a mantra. - Biruitorul Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another random pairing of nations that fails to demonstrate actual notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as I can read that sources for the article specifically deal with the Barbados-Germany relationship. If the relationship exists and is coverered in depth and in reliable sources, its a keeper per WP:GNG. There is enough to suport this article so that the informations need not be lost inside other articles. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? What sources would those be? Of the independent sources cited (and, if we're to talk about WP:GNG, then footnote 7 cannot be used), I see sources with "Barbados" and "Germany" in the same article, but no indication that "Barbados–Germany relations" are covered by any of them. - Biruitorul Talk 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again the argument that the magic word "relations" has to appear in the article to be used as a source. Any synonym will do such as "trade", "meeting" or "emigration". All are relations according to my thesaurus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about determining what relations are according to reliable sources actually documenting "Barbados–Germany relations", rather than what your original research determines those may be? Oh, right, they don't exist, so you have to make it up as you go along. WP:NOR is just one of many policies to fly out the window during these WP:POINTy "rescue" attempts. - Biruitorul Talk 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * original research says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." (my emphasis added) Please don't just point to the Bible and says "the answer is here", quote a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying something inane three times doesn't make it one whit less inane, Richard. Once again, how about determining what relations are according to reliable sources actually documenting "Barbados–Germany relations", rather than what your original research determines those may be? No one has actually dealt with this notion outside Wikipedia! Hence - original research! We deal with observed phenomena, not fabricated ones. - Biruitorul Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not ALL sources need be used to specifically show a subject meeting guideline WP:GNG, and not ALL sources need have both Germany "and" Barbados in their content, specially if some are there for the quite proper policy mandated WP:Verification of facts within the article. WP:GNG is subserviant to WP:V. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, and verifiability does not equal notability, and WP:NOR says we can't just make up topics. Given that no source actually covers "Barbados–Germany relations", the rationale for keeping this is non-existent. - Biruitorul Talk 06:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * original research says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." (my emphasis added) Please don't just point to the Bible and says "the answer is here", quote a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting downright silly. You made up this topic. It doesn't exist (beyond the trivial fact that relations exist, around which no viable article could actually be built). Show me the independent sources that actually touch on this phenomenon, rather than what your original research has advanced as a position that it is, and I'll change my vote.
 * Let's look at the last 5 FAs for how this works. Thriller (album): actual phenomenon documented here. Fauna of Scotland: actual phenomenon documented in Scotland's Wildlife. Portal (video game): actual phenomenon documented here. Hispanic Americans in World War II: actual phenomenon documented in Hispanic Military Heroes. Anne of Denmark: actual phenomenon documented in Anna of Denmark, Queen of England: A Cultural Biography. "Barbados–Germany relations": fictitious phenomenon documented nowhere as such. - Biruitorul Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Noteability clearly established after excellent improvements by Richard Arthur Norton. I see the page also now boasts a tasteful Groubani style info box. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Kudos to RAN for the work in gathering available material to expand the article and establish notability with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Claims of "fictitious" sources is in staggering bad faith. Alansohn (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to hyperventilate: the sources are real enough, it's just that abusing them to make them appear to detail "Barbados–Germany relations", when in fact they do not, is in fact creating a fiction unsupported by those sources. - Biruitorul Talk 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as i would have expected, this like most such articles can be improved sufficiently for an article, with good relevant content & sources. Trade relationships between countries are significant, and therefore even an article whose main content is  treaties providing for them  is an indication that there will be adequate material. This has been filled in sufficiently to make that clear.
 * and as for the earlier relations,  should we make another article for the relationship between every pair of previous jurisdictions? It makes more sense to combine under the current name. I do not support the multiplication of such minute articles.  DGG (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting a Colonial Barbados-Nazi Germany relations article - that's a straw man. What I for one am saying is that neither an 1874 shipwreck nor the actions of the British Army in World War II have aught to do with "Barbados–Germany relations"; that information belongs to and should be presented in entirely different contexts, where it actually makes sense. Not here, where a work of original research has strung together bits of trivia (and, in this fake context, they are trivia) on a topic no one outside Wikipedia has bothered to document. - Biruitorul Talk 06:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't recognize trivia, it is a subjective term. The only mention of trivia is in the context of style, not content. Haven't we both made these points 10 times already? Wouldn't it be easier to have a central place to argue these points instead of cutting and pasting them in each AFD? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know the mantra. Much easier to repeat that incantation than grapple with my points about contextual relevance and actually presenting information where it makes sense. Much easier to pretend that a ship sinking off an island possession in 1874 is even remotely a function of "Barbados–Germany relations". Original research of this sort can be entertaining, but is ultimately corrosive to the project. - Biruitorul Talk 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relations are relations are relations. Again you are using the more narrow term "Barbados–Germany government relations" or you are looking for the magic word "relations" to appear in the sources. Any synonym will do. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relations are what reliable, third-party, peer-reviewed sources document them -- the relations -- to be. They are not what Richard Arthur Norton thinks they are. - Biruitorul Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Mr. Norton and Mr. Schmidt have detailed how the article meets notability standards. It is delightful to find one of these seemingly whimsical Country X-Country Y articles having a well-researched text. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article is now excellently sourced and quite informative. To delete this article now would be a true loss to the community. Well done in improving this article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Being informative and well-sourced does not make the topic of an article notable, and you haven't addressed that. No one has brought up the question of the information being verifiable, so you are addressing the wrong issue, which is that the topic itself isn't notable. Drawn Some (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you review WP:Notability again. Adequate sourcing is one of its central tenants. The subject matter of this article has been verified and is notable by wikipedia's guidelines.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, verifiability does not imply notability. Sure, it's verifiable that golf balls are hitting cars in Bismarck, ND - shall we have an article on the 2009 golf ball damage to vehicles in Bismarck, North Dakota? And moreover, like I've stressed, context is important. It's quite likely notable that Barbadian men fought in World War II. But that has about zero to do with "Barbados–Germany relations"; what it does have to do with is the Military history of the British West Indies during World War II (for that, see this) - that is the relevant context for the information, not the invented topic of "Barbados–Germany relations". - Biruitorul Talk 06:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEEVENT proves that just being "verifiable" and "sourced" doesn't equal notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEEVENT discusses stand alone articles. So an article on the signing of a mutual cooperation treaty would not warrant a stand alone article, unless it was covered by multiple reliable sources, and there was enough info to fill an article. It does not preclude that treaty being mentioned here or at the article on either of the signatory countries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep substantially improved. To the best of my knowledge the Nazis were the first time the Barbadian parliament passed a resolution to declare war on another country.  The war was a rather major event in Barbadian history.  There is even a cenotaph monument located outside the Barbados Paliament in National Heros Square with 4 plaques affixed to each side full of named of Barbadians who died fighting during World War I & II in Germany as well. CaribDigita (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Context, CaribDigita, context. No one doubts the importance of the war to Barbadian history. But the war is relevant in the context of the History of Barbados, or better yet, the Military history of the British West Indies during World War II. It is not relevant and does not make sense to discuss it in the context of "Barbados–Germany relations", simply because no one (outside Wikipedia) has actually found fit to document this supposed phenomenon, and as it hasn't been written about outside Wikipedia, our rules on original research (should) prevent us from having an article on the topic. - Biruitorul Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment in what is another true barrel scrape of trivia, how does In 2006 Germany won the World Cup in men's golf in Barbados. relate to bilateral relations? Japan won the same world cup in Mexico in 2002, does that relate to Japan-Mexico relations? Usain Bolt won a gold medal at the Beijing Olympics, does that add to China-Jamaica relations? LibStar (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In a good faith effort to save this article, it has become polluted by a lot of off topic and/or very questionably relevant content. For example: "In 1874 the German bark Pierre Buyper was wrecked on the coast of Barbados", "In 2006 Germany won the World Cup in men's golf in Barbados", etc. If you ignore all that, you're left with very little relevant material. And none the cited sources (or at least those that are independent of the governments of Barbados and Germany) actually address the topic of "Barbados–Germany relations" directly or in detail. Therefore, this topic fails WP:N. Yilloslime T C  19:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this almanacic article due to yet another impressive rescue effort for this sort of article by Richard Arthur Norton. Article clearly meets WP:N now.  Good job!  That is what we all like to see.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "Comment Making  war on each other is the epitome of international relations. Obviously it was talked about. This is all that could  possibly be asked for . DGG''' (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I remind you that it was of course the British Empire making war on Germany, not Barbados. If you don't believe me, see Allies of World War II and let me know if you find Barbados on that list. And A Nobody, using "almanacic" [sic] doesn't mask the triviality of the information therein one whit. - Biruitorul Talk 15:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete --- bulk of the article consists of factoids that happen to involve Germans/Barbadians. Two nn totally unremarkable and rather trivial treaties are all in the article that are on topic. Appears to be another arbitrary xy intersection article that someone has tried to save with excessive synthesis. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "nn" is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when not true. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You think that these are notable treaties?!
 * An Agreement for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments
 * An agreement for a waiver on visas Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not just the treaties, but rather the treaties, plus the fact that they were on opposing sides in world wars, etc. The totality of the relations are of sufficient interest to our readers to justify inclusion.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The war is lessened as an issue (in my view) given that every British colony/commonwealth/dominion was at war with Germany once the UK declared war. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is the combination for me, not any one thing. I have always used encyclopedias because I have a question I want answered.  I could legitimately see people using our reference guide asking any of the following: "Did Barbados and Germany have any interactions in the world wars?"  "When did Barbados and Germany develop relations?"  "What kind of trade does Barbados and Germany have with each other?"  Etc.  Anyone doing research on the totality of the world wars, i.e. trying to get the full global context, anyone doing research on say Caribbean and European trade, etc. all of these things are real world items of interest to people of diverse disciplines.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, WP:ITSUSEFUL--an argument to avoid. Yilloslime T C  23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, it is not only useful, but also notable, encyclopedic, verifiable, unoriginal research, etc. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The only significant section of this article, the History section, reads more liek it has to do with Barbados - UK relations than with Germany; German interaction is a footnote. Of the rest, low trade ("not very significant" by the article's own text" and a few typical agreements don't really elevate this subject up to notability. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  21:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The combination of these things obviously demonstrates notability by any reasonable or logical standard. Indiscriminately wanting to delete all of these with "Kill it with fire!" hyperbole in edit summaries posted in rapid fire fashion as with the the AfDs you commented in prior to this one hardly reflect any real consideration of the individual articles or objectivity and neutrality with regards to them.  Please instead help us to improve content.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If criticizing my edit summary is the best you can do to refute my argument, you're on shaky ground indeed. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  05:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage you to make constructive and honest contributions to these discussions and to actual articles themselves. "Kill with fire" is not an argument that one can take seriously as something to refute.  What sources have you looked for?  How have you tried to incorporate them into the article?  What locations did you first try to merge content to?  Just rapid fire and indiscriminantly going down the list of these without showing any evidence of knowledge of the subjects at hand or serious efforts to research them does not add anything to an academic discussion and using hyperbole in edit summaries weakens any real stance at deletion, because any neutral observer can see, okay, Richard Arthur Norton, for example is actively working to improve the article in addition to commenting in the AfD as a contrast to anyone who just virtually copy and pastes to delete all of these without demonstrating any proactivity or real discriminate consideration.  Thus, any neutral admin will see that those arguing to keep having their stance augmented by tangible improvements made specifically to this article as a clear contrast to a seemingly pattern of these "kill with fire"s that can be chalked up as either non-serious hyperbole or a simple case of extreme WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regards to bilateral relations articles, i.e. a viewpoint justifiably not given much weight.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 09:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he is not "working to improve the article", he is stuffing it with trivia in a WP:POINTy manner in order to generate the appearance of notability for a topic no one outside Wikipedia has bothered to cover, as part of an inane "rescue" effort. Let's give an unvarnished version of the facts. The only salient fact, that Barbados was affected by WWII, has zero contextual relevance to this topic, as no source has actually discussed Barbados in WWII in the context of "Barbados–Germany relations". See History of Barbados and Military history of the British West Indies during World War II for articles where it would actually be appropriate to discuss that history. Cue your irrelevant Napoleon and Waterloo example... - Biruitorul Talk 15:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why not merge this sourced information there instead of just wasting Wikipedia server space with yet another AfD? So instead of an encyclopedia of articles that are at least of interest to someone, you would rather we be an encyclopedia of deletion discussions that are of interest to who?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people were trying to merging things, and they we asked to stop. So here we are. Yilloslime T C  16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, you're taking to someone who actually writes articles, so your speculations on "what kind of an encyclopedia I would rather have us be" are nonsense, and better kept to yourself. Second, "sourced" is not a synonym for "relevant". Sure, it's "sourced" that Mark Sundberg is looking for queen bees, but that's relevant neither to the History of North Dakota nor to Beekeeping. Like I said days ago, here is a start for discussing intelligently the role of the British West Indies during the War. But not the present pastiche of trivia randomly gathered up and thrown together - that's fit for the dustbin, not merging. - Biruitorul Talk 17:00, 12 July 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.