Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France – 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 no consensus. Although relations between two countries are not inherently notable in and of themselves, the arguments in favor of keeping the article (particularly the French presence in Tobago) outweigh the arguments in favor of deletion to enough of an extent that I'm comfortable with closing this debate as a "no consensus". One two three... 04:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France – Trinidad and Tobago relations

Non-notable intersection of countries, nothing more to say than where the embassies are, failing WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR, fails WP:RS, and fails WP:N by having no third-party indications of notability of this topic as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random X-Y article, not even a colony. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, with regards to Tobago, France occupied the colony from Aug 1666 - Mar 1667; on 6 Dec 1677, the French destroyed the Dutch colony and claimed the entire island before restoring it to the Dutch by Treaty of Nimeguen on 10 Aug 1678; in 1751, the French settled colonists on the island, but ceded it to Britain in the Treaty of Paris of 10 Feb 1763; it was again a French colony from 2 Jun 1781 - 15 Apr 1793; nominally part of the Lucie département of France from 25 Oct 1797 - 19 Apr 1801; and once again a French colony from 30 Jun 1802 - 30 Jun 1803. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all relations are in a sport context. [1] non resident embassies (you would at least expect Trinidad to have one in Paris but no). Information about it being a colony should be in History of Trinidad and Tobago, appears to be little ongoing relations. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Considering that the French at one point had control over Tobago and fought multiple wars with the British for it seems like it deserves to be kept. So the notion this is entirely random seems a bit off, the french have a history of relations with this Island. -Marcusmax(speak) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that sort of history been in the relevant articles about the period? Why does it need an article about the modern political relationship between the two countries?Knobbly (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. The sources found by User:Marcusmax are either not independent ([9],[10]), not secondary ([11]), or discuss the history of T&T, but are not pertinent to the topic of this article (though the material can, should, and hopefully is covered in History_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago) ([12],[13],[14],[15]). Yilloslime ^T_C 00:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world. (Then imagine if we started on every state inside every country, where does it end?) If there is a significant relationship include it in the relevant country's article.Knobbly (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources discuss this relationship in any depth at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doing just a quick search reveals that reliable sources discuss this specific relationship in depth. See for example Sahadeo Basdeo and Graeme Mount, "Relations with France," The Foreign Relations of Trinidad and Tobago (1962-2000): The Case of a Small State in the Global Arena (Lexicon, 2001), 69, 151, etc.: "The French presence in Trinidad and Tobago dates back two centuries. It is not surprising that French influence, particularly in the ... In this regard, France was as important as Britain. Hitherto, relations between Trinidad and Tobago and France had been very cordial though somewhat low in ..." There's actually a good deal of information that is specifically about this particular bilateral relationship. Remember to try different kinds of searches and search strings when checking out Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, J-Stor, and Academic Search Complete, etc. Look, we might not find such sources for every bilateral relation and that's why I won't comment in every one of these AfDs, but this one actually does happen to be "notable" due to being the specific subject of sections of published books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a lot more added to it now. They seem to have a significant history towards one another, making them notable. Dream Focus 06:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the improvement and the keep arguments presented a nobody above Satu Suro 07:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt i have reviewed the changes to the article. While a photo gallery and a primary source showing that the two signed a free skies air service agreement in the 60s is nice, but not evidence of a bilateral relationship of any notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it is covered in a whole section of a reliable secondary source is, not to mention their colonial relationship in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what form of nation state was Trinidad and Tobago during the 300 year period you reference? What was the extent of colonial french involvement?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - With regards to Tobago, France occupied the colony from Aug 1666 - Mar 1667; on 6 Dec 1677, the French destroyed the Dutch colony and claimed the entire island before restoring it to the Dutch by Treaty of Nimeguen on 10 Aug 1678; in 1751, the French settled colonists on the island, but ceded it to Britain in the Treaty of Paris of 10 Feb 1763; it was again a French colony from 2 Jun 1781 - 15 Apr 1793; nominally part of the Lucie département of France from 25 Oct 1797 - 19 Apr 1801; and once again a French colony from 30 Jun 1802 - 30 Jun 1803. Later when Trinidad and Tobago became a nation-state, the countries signed multiple treaties, France maintains an embassy in the country, competed in atheletic events, etc. Thus, they have a cultural and historic connection and have had friendly relation since that are relevant to students of international diplomacy. I can't really effectively defend all these bilateral relations one, but to say this relationship is not notable is absurd. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage of these non-notable relations in any reliable secondary source. Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is flat out not true as pointed out above. A whole section of a published book is devoted specifically to relations between Trinidad and Tobago with France. Moreover, a colonial relationship that occurred in three separate centuries is clearly notable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except for the fact that no one has actually read the book you mention as opposed to pro-googling it. I suggest that the book deals only with the history of T&T, and has nothing whatsoever about the ongoing relationship (or lack thereof) between the two nations. Hipocrite (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you haven't read it, the you do not know what it contains and shouldn't make assumptions that are wrong. The book says, "The French presence in Trinidad and Tobago dates back two centuries. It is not surprising that French influence, particularly in the ... In this regard, France was as important as Britain. Hitherto, relations between Trinidad and Tobago and France had been very cordial though somewhat low in ..." among other things and it is but one of several reliable sources that discuss this relationship. The book specifically focuses on the post-colonial relationship and thus ongoing relationship. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you haven't read it, you shouldn't be quoting it based on a google books search. You appear to misrepresent what the book is about. The only discussion about France you have listed so far is historical. Perhaps if you went and got the book and improved the article I would reconsider my !vote, but right now it appears that the book supports only mention in a history article, not a political relations article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have looked over excerpts from some pages in it (hence how I am able to quote from it). The book is about as its titles suggest the foreign relations of Trindidad and Tobago since the 1960s and as such includes a section specifically on relatins with France. In addition to the coverage in this book, we have presented other sources that expand on this diplomatic relationship, which is clearly suitable for coverage in Wikipedia. Again, some of these bilateral relations are questionable, but this one is absolutely notable and any one familiar with political relations knows that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a shame you can't get the book as a whole and quote something more recent than something about a 200 year old colonial relationship and cut off the quote after "low in ..." then, because if the book says what you hope it says, it would make this relationship notable. However, since neither of us have a copy of the book, and I don't care to waste my time getting a copy of the book, and you aren't saying you're going to get the book, we seem stuck with nothing more than "low in ..." as the entirety of the comment of the book on current relationships. Ahh well. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have added material on their modern, post-1960s relations from a variety of sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The only post 1960's content you have added is an air services agreement and an ambasadorial visit. By that standard, we could have an article on Delta Airlines - Port Authority of New York City relations. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have also added information on how "Trinidad and Tobago has bilateral investment agreements with France." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantial discussion of bilateralism between these two countries has been adduced to justify retention. Eusebeus (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you objectively read the article and the above discussion, you will see that substantial discussion of bilateralism between these two countries has been added to justify retention. No one can honestly say otherwise given the historic colonial relationship, the modern interactions, and coverage of all of this in reliable secondary sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  You are conflating history for bilateralism. I would say that is weak-minded, especially for someone purporting to study history, but I'll chalk it up instead to my dishonesty and your predisposition. Now, no more discussion please - our disagreement is noted. Eusebeus (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sahadeo Basdeo and Graeme Mount, "Relations with France," The Foreign Relations of Trinidad and Tobago (1962-2000): The Case of a Small State in the Global Arena (Lexicon, 2001), 69, 151, etc is indeed bilateral relations. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that cite is that the chapter on relations with France is all of two pages; the one about relations with France and Germany is three [16].--chaser (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is actually about as clear as it gets, and it is interesting to watch the intellectual contortions trying to say otherwise. If one country occupies another repeatedly, there are interesting and notable foreign relations between them. If a book has a section about the foreign relations between two countries, there are sources. France has had very noteworthy foreign relations with every country in the Caribbean: it was a major area of colonial contention for centuries. This topic deals not just with the present day but with historical ones also. True, the original production of the articles ignored that part, and that was among the very many mistakes in how the articles got made. But this is fixable. This is an aspect of history that is worth a separate article--in fact, it is worth several, for we could probably do one on each of the historical periods. But we can start more modestly with this single article. DGG (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article at this point meets Wikipedia requirements of notability and verifiability. Colonial relationships, no matter how short are significant in history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's obviously notable. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm conflicted. I came here to close this, but couldn't (so good luck to whoever does). On the one hand, an article on the relationship between these two countries does not need to be restricted to the present day, but can track its historical revolution over time. Witness, for example, the bulk of France – United Kingdom relations. OTOH, this article doesn't read like a history of a relationship, but like a history of colonization with a few modern indicators of relationship thrown in. Most of this could probably be merged into History of Trinidad and Tobago, although given the lack of almost any French mention there now, I'd be cautious about giving undue weight to the French presence in any merger. On balance, I'd say weak delete, so that information about the French influence on the country can be properly added to that article based on a fuller review of the sources by someone who more often does work in this area. This article, despite a good rescue attempt, does not appear to have sufficiently cohesive sources on the subject to hold together.--chaser (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2009 (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.