Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia – Trinidad and Tobago 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Russia – Trinidad and Tobago relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

article is a blatant copy of, and it really isn't a lot of relations, no significant cultural, diplomatic or economic relations. the only coverage I could find is multilateral. Those wanting to keep should provide actual evidence of indepth coverage of relations not vague arguments. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources demonstrate a bilateral relationship which began 37 years ago with fairly regular contact, especially for a small state like Trinidad. While I still wish editors would create more articles like Trinidad and Tobago – United Kingdom relations (a colonial relationship which lasted hundreds of years), these articles also demonstrate notability. CIA Factbook lists Russia as the fourth largest importer to Trinidad, which I'd say is an indicator of the relationship--TM 02:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * as per WP:GNG, there is a lack of coverage of this relationship. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. The sources I have added demonstrate notability. It is not the strongest bilateral relationship, but one clearly exists per multiple, reliable, independent sources.--TM 03:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 sources is hardly significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Where is GNG does it say that?--TM 05:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." unless something is inherently notable, notability is demonstrated by the depth of coverage which includes indepth articles but also contained in multiple sources. a bilateral relations article hinging on 3 sources is lower on the notability rung. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that bilateral relations articles are held to a higher standard than all other articles? No articles would be deleted because they "only" have 3 or 4 sources. It says "multiple", not "a dozen". The nature of the sources is not trivial; they are commentaries discussing the facts of Trinidad's relationship with Russia, including the tourists who visit, their visa statuses, why Russians have recently been allowed to visit with visas and concerns about the spread of the Russian mafia to Trinidad. Moreover, the Russian state oil company, GazProm, owns what looks to be a significant amount of Trinidad's natural gas production; this is another sign of relatively important relations.--TM 14:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is this Gazprom info from? I can find speculation from ~2007 that BP might sell to Gazprom, but nothing since, and no mention of Gazprom on Atlantic LNG's website. Guettarda (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have misstated the Gazprom information slightly. This 2006 article from oilandgasinsight.com says they had begun purchasing natural gas from Trinidad.--TM 03:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Not ready to say delete yet, since there's a suggestion that improvements might be made, but I'm not impressed with the significance. The thing about Russia being fourth is based on percentages-- "US 30.87%, Colombia 7.1%, Venezuela 7.01%, Russia 6.64%", so Russia would be a distant fourth.  The article in some places is a word-for-word duplicate of the source cited; in the rest of the places, it's a matter of paraphrasing a few words in a sentence.  Still, a  question I'd pose is whether one can cite an example of U.S. relations with any nation in the world that would not be notable.  Moreover, this shallow, recentist description misses the point that Moscow was trying to strengthen its foothold in the Caribbean during the Cold War.  I get a laugh out the idea that Russia isn't the successor to  the Soviet Union.  Mandsford 02:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that the relationship seems to be of growing importance, as demonstrated by the 3 articles from Trinidadian newspapers regarding the issue of Russian visitors from January 2011.--TM 02:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, if there's anything significant in terms of the relationship between TT and Russia it probably revolves around people like George Padmore, maybe CLR James, and later, in the context of the Soviet-supported regime of Forbes Burnham in Guyana and Maurice Bishop in Grenada. And I have my doubts about that. The current content though, is trivial. Guettarda (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * so are you saying keep or delete? LibStar (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither. It is, after all, a discussion, not a vote. Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I think there's potential, here and in "real life", for example, both nations are involved in the development of kerogen or heavy oil, see . Bearian (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the article describes them as "potential heavy oil players" and provides no evidence of actual bilateral cooperation or these countries talking to each other. nor does it qualify as indepth coverage of a relationship. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2011 (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.