Deletion of Barbados–Turkey relations

Comment: When I say weak keep, full emphasis on the weak. The entire second paragraph is a load of  and . However there is quite a lot about tourism which happens to be Barbados key asset, per  I have provided some secondary sources, which in my opinion is usually good enough for a keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: No indication that  is satisfied. No need at all for this article per ummary 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:S)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)