Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbados–Japan 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of renaming can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Japan relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. I don't see signficant third party coverage of actual relations. gnews turns up close to little. no resident ambassadors, most of relations occur in a Japan-Carribean context. Japanese foreign website refers to 5,300 million yen of investment which equates to USD70 million, this is a tiny fraction of Japan's economy. one ministerial visit in 44 years of relations says it all. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have meant, one ministerial visit from Japan. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Libstar always cracks me up. Now if I'm to accept your figures as accurate. Firstly US$70 Million in trade for a country with a population of only a quarter million is not "significant" in terms of share of overall trade? Japan is Barbados' fourth largest trading partner. But what do I know about 'significance.' That figure is only 250x the size of Barbados' total population.

Secondly, that part about one-visit between nations again is not correct.

1991 Prime Minister L. Erskine Sandiford;
1993 Minister of Foreign Affairs Brandford Taitt;
1994 Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Phillip Goddard;
1997 Minister of Health Elizabeth Thompson;
1999 President of Barbadian Museum and History Association;
2000 Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Billie Miller;
2004 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Billie Miller;
2005 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Billie Miller; Parliamentary Minister of the Department of the Treasury, Barker; Honorary Consul General of Japan in Bridgetown Kirton; Minister of State in Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Symmonds;
2009 Minister of State (Finance, Investment, Telecommunications and Energy), Darcy Boyce;
2010 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Maxine McClean;

To further set the record straight, the Consulate for Japan is in St.George [1]

CaribDigita (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and Barbados' GDP is about $4 billion. so a $70 million investment is relatively small. being the 4th largest trading partner does not guarantee an article on bilateral relations, what would, would be significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's a honorary consul, that is a volunteer position held by a resident. They have very little functions, and are in no way an ambassador, and is hardly an indicator of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - given the conflict on fishery rights this is a notable relationship. Pantherskin (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what fishery conflict? there is no mention of it in the article? LibStar (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda remember something about that. Wasn't there a dispute as-right about Japan & Taiwan's deep-sea fishing fleets catching fish in the EEZ of Barbados during the 1990s? Was that ever resolved? CaribDigita (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no opinion. If the fishery conflict was notable, could this article not be moved to one on that? DCItalk 03:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand at CARICOM-Japan relations. Nearly all the sources regard not interactions between Japan and Barbados in particular, but between Japan and CARICOM, an organization of 15 Caribbean nations and dependencies. It would be senseless to duplicate this information into a Japan-X relations article for every member of CARICOM. A merge would be effective in avoiding duplication: interactions between Japan and CARICOM would only be mentioned once, while basic facts like when Japan established foreign relations with each CARICOM nation could be listed in a table. It would also result in a larger article with better context. Dcoetzee 06:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The World Book Encyclopedia tells us that "Barbados trades mainly with Canada, Japan.... The World Guide tells us that "Japan signed agreements to invest in tourism on the island." These nations clearly have significant relations. Warden (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how about significant coverage in multiple sources? LibStar (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Warden seems to have cited multiple sources Shii (tock) 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden. The suggestion to rename and expand to include all of Caricom has logic to it, but it would inevitably be the subject of deletion challenge too, knowing the history of this sort of article, and it would almost be harder to defend at AfD than this smaller nation-based piece. Carrite (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.