Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economy of the Caribbean

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. Stalwart111 is right, it's clearly a notable topic, even if the article is a mess. But that means it needs to be fixed up, not deleted. NOrthamerica1000 pointed out possible copyvios. Those should be investigated, but that can be done post-AfD. If it really does turn out that there is no non-copyvio material, it can be CSD:G12'd later. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of the Caribbean[edit]

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

Unreferenced, with the exception of the last (single-sentence) paragraph. Lots of data included, with no sources for verifiabiliy. Many conclusions are drawn from this data, appearing to be original research, as they are unreferenced as well. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I don't disagree with the nominator's analysis, those aren't really reasons to delete the article; they are problems that can probably be fixed. The question, in my mind, is whether or not the subject is notable or not. I don't think there would be much argument, surely? It should be possible to create a well-sourced article with a comprehensive timeline covering the economy of the Caribbean from Spanish settlement through to a modern tourism-based economy. What the nominator seems to be arguing for is a WP:BLOWITUP deletion which I can seem some justification for, but I think securing some support for a clean-up effort would be a better course of action. Stalwart111 09:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To me the topic justifies an article and the article just needs improving. Deletion would not seem to me justified. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - It's possible that much of the article may be in copyright violation of the following sources: [1], [2]. However, it's also possible that those websites may have copied content from the Wikipedia article to their respective sites. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is not so awful as to be blown up, although it needs a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS - as a main article, it can be useful as a central hub of links. I started a lead. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2014 (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.