Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbados–Nigeria 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Barbados–Nigeria relations

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

another laughable combination. the cited story comes under WP:NOT. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Edison (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - this mostly needs more sourcing; I think it can be rescued. Anyone? Bearian (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - based on the sources found, it's more of a "we want a relationship" relationship than a "we have a relationship" one. - Biruitorul Talk 16:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per Bearian. —  Jake   Wartenberg  17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Biruitorul. Wikipedia only has articles things about things which exist. All In Order (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — All In Order (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a Hilary T sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Barbados has major ties to Nigeria for one genetically most Bajans appear to be from regions of Nigeria. The local accent Bajan is directly-related to several Nigerian languages. including the Yoruba people, the Igbo people etc. (This answers the "supposed" idea outlined here...  Slavery and Economy in Barbados Quote: "Black slaves were imported in large numbers from the Gold Coast region in particular, especially from what is today the country of Ghana. The Asante, Ewe, Fon and Fante peoples provided the bulk of imports into Barbados. Nigeria also provided slaves for Barbados, the Yoruba, Efik, Igbo and Ibibio being the main ethnic groups targeted." Exaclty what will be the criteria for Foreign relations articles? Also did you read the part I had in the discussion page of that article involving the inter-government scandal involving a Nigerian nurse that died while working temporarily at the Government Hospital in Barbados?  That is pretty significant. Because after the news leaked it, the Nurses refused to stay and asked for their programme in Barbados to be stopped. I also think it is kind of baffling that if one country says to another "we want you to establish an embassy in our country so that we can increase ties even more" that that would be seen as non-notable esp. since it is referenced. And so I would ask this article should be notable to whom?   It may not be notable in the US or Europe.  But Barbados-Nigerian relations are pretty significant in Barbados. As per here...   -- CaribDigita (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The identity of the article's creator is one of the factors I look at. Although this new article has come out in the middle of a firefight over the mass-produced "X-Y relations" pages, CaribDigita has been a Wikipedian longer than most of us, well over four years.  Although what I've seen thus far is debatably notable (such as working on direct flights between the two nations), I'm in favor of letting Carib-- who has an impressive record in writing articles-- work on this one. Mandsford (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Biruitorul. And let me add that supposed genetic and cultural links between peoples, created at a time when none of the two states existed, add absolutely nothing, and say more about both countries' relationship with the colonial power managing the slave trade. Using the same reasoning, Hungary's relationship with China would overshadow all the links Hungary has with its neighbors, as would Madagascar's relationship with Malaysia and Malta's with Saudi Arabia. A random diplomatic incident, if at all noteworthy, can fit into another niche to cover the two or three sentences discussing it. Dahn (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability established in the article or establishable by sources findable by me.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources don't meet WP:N and it's unlikely that better ones are available for such an odd topic Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X–Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I'm not opposed to this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. Disc space is cheap. Human time and effort are not. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM is not a reason. The above should be disregarded. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the comment by 65.246 should be disregarded. That's what we call a backhanded compliment, lumping this particular article in the same category as those mass-produced pages generated by Groubani/Plumoyr.  Those juxtellaneous miscepositions take only a few minutes to create, roughly the same amount of time that it takes to write on a wall with spray paint.  A serious editor like Carib should not be compared to Johnny Appleseed.  In retrospect, April 2009 was like the worst possible time to create an article about one nation's foreign relations with another.  If it's not kept this time around, no prejudice to it being recreated later. Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a Mbhiii sockpuppet &mdash; another sockpuppetteer that attempts to stuff nonexistent ballots at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...not if shared or not used to circumvent policy. Do you see both (or either) here? -MBHiii (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per CaribDigita & Mandsford. And this widow who emailed me about helping her get $425 million out of her late husband's Barbadian bank account. (She promises to share some of it with me, too!) -- llywrch (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 10:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article consists exclusively of the kind of information that may or may not be mentioned in passing, to give depth to an existing article. There is no indication that the subject of this article (the relations between the two states) passes WP:N, and no technical reason to put the information here rather than into more reasonable places. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Mandsford and as the article provides useful information the growing political and commercial ties between these two nations.  There’s a  central discussion. going on where we’re trying to establish consensus for a guideline to clearly state that  that the sort of sources we have for this article are sufficient evidence of notability. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not about what's useful, but about what's encyclopedic. And by any measure (try WP:GNG), the sources given do not cover the topic in encyclopedic fashion. - Biruitorul Talk 17:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Pending Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banj e  b oi   23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establisha guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out a more appropriate solution. -- Banj e  b oi   01:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? You see sources meeting WP:GNG? Do tell! - Biruitorul Talk 01:37, 30 April 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.