Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbados–Turkey 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   default keep, as there's no solid consensus. Nja 247 08:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Barbados–Turkey relations

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

no evidence of notable relationship. only intent which is covered like a news story WP:NOT. LibStar (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - an article built of half speculation, half trivia. Barbados and Turkey "may cooperate" on tourism: so? That's hardly indicative there's much of a relationship going on; certainly there aren't any sources studying the relationship as such, only a news item the article creator has decided forms part of a notable relationship, but ends up prioritizing irrelevant trivia and breaching WP:SYNTH by jumping to conclusions about what is and is not notable in the relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 13:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - When I say weak keep, full emphasis on the weak. The entire second paragraph is a load of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. However there is quite a lot about tourism which happens to be Barbados key asset, per WP:GNG I have provided some secondary sources, which in my opinion is usually good enough for a keep. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete When there is nothing going on, that fact can be mentioned in Foreign relations of Barbados and Foreign relations of Turkey, where its more likely to be viewed in context. An x-y article should be maintained only in those cases where there's evidence that the two nations each consider the relationship to be notable.  Mandsford (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Mandsford.--Moloch09 (talk) 14:28, 26 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. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It needs expansion. It is an outline of the beginning framework of the political/economic integration deal signed between the EU and CARICOM last year. Refernces from the governments of both nations were provided. So far Caribbean nationals (in the musical and cultural industries) are to be allowed free movement into Europe Union under the terms of EPA. Out of the Caribbean, Africa, and Pacific bloc I believe only the Caribbean signed on to the deal with Europe. Due to that signing the powers of the EU parliament are now supposed to be binding upon the CARICOM bloc of countries (which IMHO they signed that deal in haste). As mentioned, should Turkey join the EU this would provide an additional tie between Turkey and Barbados outside of the current aid provided by Turkey to the region. CaribDigita (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This too would be a little dubious, but wouldn't a Barbados and the European Union article work better? 2) By all accounts, the Accession of Turkey to the European Union is a long, long way off, and speculating about what might be once that happens (2020 at the earliest) is rather premature. - Biruitorul Talk 16:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Barbados and the European Union relations I thought about too. It might be something to consider, however I thought that it sounded like it could be a little misleading. It sounds a bit like Barbados was going to be joining the EU or something and I don't think that's going to happen.  It might be better to reverse back up to the main Foreign relations of Barbados and Foreign relations of Turkey.  E.g. The part about the Tourism as a form of technical cooperation in the Barbados article.  And the part about Turkey being an Observer in the Association of Caribbean States (ACS) and Caribbean Sea Commission in the Turkey article. As Turkey's agenda of covering deeper relations with the LAC region. CaribDigita (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The only thing in the article that has relevancy has nothing in particular to do with Turkey. Dahn (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and the current addresses of consulates and status of diplomatic relations is better kept up to date via a link from the article about the country to its foreign relations department website, than having thousands of stale robostubs. Edison (talk) 18:49, 26 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)
 * Such discussions generally have no "outcome". Mandsford (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't preempt the outcome of the discussion. A possible outcome of the discussion is the creation of additional notability criteria. The discussion at Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved. The nominator's behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And folks can talk all they want to. But as far as I can tell, none of the regulars participating in these AfD discussions here -- BlueSquadron, Biriturol, WilyD, me, etc. --- was ever invited to that discussion when it was started by User:Tone, and it's already out of hand.  Let us know what you folks decided, but please don't ask us to stop this discussion.  Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:26, 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) 09:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:00, 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) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep  Theeconomic relations cited above are substantial enough to warrant an article. DGG (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication that WP:N is satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style, as it only consists of random trivia that were apparently unearthed only to create the appearance that this is a proper article. Note to closing admin: Three of the "keep" votes are clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It can be improved. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  13:09, 3 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.