Caribbean Basin : Whatever else this article might have been intended for, is better served by List of Caribbean islands or Caribbean Sea .  It has been a redirect in the past, that could work instead of deletion, but then we must agree on the best target.  NLeeuw ( talk ) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions .  NLeeuw ( talk ) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PS: The discussion has evolved a lot since I commenced it three days ago.  Now 4 editors (including myself as nom) are in favour of Disambiguation, and 2 editors are in favour of Keep, while nobody is in favour of outright Deletion or a Redirect anymore.  Just want to note that, because the latter two are the only options I suggested in my original rationale above.  NLeeuw ( talk ) 08:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Reywas92 : I see you've just turned it into a redirect to Caribbean .  I'm not opposed to that outcome, but isn't this a bit of a premature move after I have just initiated this AfD?  NLeeuw ( talk ) 21:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oops, I was using the easy-merge tool and had the page up since before your nomination so I didn't even see that when I saved it five minutes later!  I undid that and will vote redirect to Caribbean .  The one source is an analysis of the breadth of terms that can apply to this region, all of which can have different geographic and political definitions, so I see no basis for a separate article as if this were a distinct or well-defined concept.  The see also links for the US program use the political definition that includes some non-bordering countries, so this is pointless.  Reywas92 Talk 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Haha I already thought that might have been going on as we acted almost at the same time.  No worries.  :) NLeeuw ( talk ) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In light of the comment below I would also support disambiguation However, I am still strongly opposed to keeping the page.  Even with the added information, I don't see the need for stand-alone article.  The origin of the term for the Caribbean Basin Initiative belongs on that article, and the rest is just generically about the region.  Yes, the term is used – inconsistently, including for this Initiative and as described by [46] – but even if Basin countries are related in various ways however defined, a separate page isn't warranted.  Reywas92 Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not OR or SYNTH - in fact, a very easy WP:BEFORE search as the defined area is discussed by many books and scholarly articles dating back years including [47] [48] [49] [50] .  These just scratch the surface - there was a history section at one point that was deleted for lack of sourcing, wondering if restoring and sourcing it would be a good idea.  SportingFlyer T · C 22:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Turn into a disambiguation page to disambiguate w/ Caribbean , Caribbean Basin Initiative , Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983 , Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act and Caribbean Basin Trade and Partnership Act .  It's clear from the vast array of reliable sources and uses that "Caribbean Basin" is a generic term for the Caribbean Sea and countries in the region.  The article as it stands relies on one source to separate out Barbados and the Bahamas as not part of the Caribbean Basin, but most other uses include all regional countries in the term and treat it as an equivalent term to "Caribbean region."  It would be original research for an article to rely on a single (and tendentious) definition to somehow conjure "Caribbean Basin" into existence as a separate term.  My reason for turning this into a disambig page rather than a redirect is to cover the various U.S. government laws and initiatives employing the term (and that include the Bahamas and Barbados, natch).  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 22:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disambiguate per Dclemens' sensible reasoning and a lot of the competing definitions which may lead to a WP:POVFORK with Caribbean if this is not done.  I think that's the first time I've gotten to vote that in an AfD.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 01:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A DP might be the best solution here.  I wouldn't be opposed to that outcome either.  NLeeuw ( talk ) 10:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've expanded the article with reliable sources.  Based on the sources I've seen which I've added to the article (see article), this appears to be a specific geographical region, which in part, but not exclusively, is determined by political and economic considerations.  In someway, similar to the Middle Belt , and other regional articles, etc.  The subject is notable in its own right, with plenty of WP:RS discussing the topic in dephth, and maybe we should be mindful not to confuse the general reader between a geographic region/basin (which are notable), and an economic or trade program like Caribbean Basin Initiative , instituted by statute law like Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983 .  There is a huge difference between these and perhaps we should be mindful not to lump this article to other articles which would be wrong, and might also confuse the reader.  In my view, to merge with another article would be like discussing two separate unrelated subjects in the same article.  In the end, it may push the community to have to create the same article which was previously created and deleted, just to separate the two topics, and would send us back to square one.  I haven't even scratched the surface, but from the sources I've seen so far, I believe this article can be expanded even further.  On a side note, would the nom kindly transclude this AfD to to alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa so that Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora are also automatically alerted?  African Diaspora get their notifications from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups or Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa .  Many thanks.  Tamsier ( talk ) These additions don't deal with the fact that there is no consensus among the sources on what defines the "Caribbean Basin" versus just the "Caribbean."  As the current revision of the article notes, the US Caribbean Basin Initiative excluded Cuba and Nicaragua.  One sentence says "This means countries like Barbados and The Bahamas, which are culturally and politically Caribbean, are not included.[2]" (And the list in the article does indeed exclude them.) Later on, a statement in the article says "It is customary to include Bermuda and the Bahamian Archipelago within this region, although they are located in the Atlantic Ocean outside the arc, since they share the cultural and historical legacy of the countries of the Lesser Antilles."  So what is it?  The more the article gets developed, the more it will just turn into a content fork of Caribbean .  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent observation.  NLeeuw ( talk ) 19:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dclemens1971, I think that is a matter for the reliable secondary sources to decide, not for us to define it, as to try and do so here would constitute WP:OR .  We report on what the reliable secondary sources say with respect to weight, and leave it to the general reader to make up their mind.  If we go down the route of trying to define it here, that would constitute WP:OR.  The differences in definition as per sources, however, should not be grounds for deletion.  In situations like that, we simply report per weight as per Wiki guidelines.  Tamsier ( talk ) 20:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But if the reliable sources don't even have a common agreement on what "Caribbean Basin" means or if it's different from "Caribbean," why bother having an article about it?  Do we need an article to debate the semantics of the term "Caribbean Basin," because that's what we have now.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 20:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there is general agreement.  Part of the problem is that the agreement doesn't match what's currently in the actual article.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But this still isn't really a "specific geographical region" in that the geographical area/first sentence isn't even accurate in most cases.  The book you added "The Caribbean Basin: An International History" does include Barbados and the Bahamas, as well as El Salvador.  Certainly we can acknowledge that Caribbean island nations are historically and politically related to the Central American and northern South American countries, but I don't feel like we need a stand-alone article to say that.  We could draftify the page, but I'm not sure what sort of expansion you say can be done actually has to be done here – and not somewhere like History of Central America or History of the Caribbean – that wouldn't just be duplicative or an unnecessary content fork.  Reywas92 Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But why does there need to be a specific definition in order to show notability?  Why can't we say some sources say X and some say Y and have it be notable?  Why is an editing decision coming in the way of notability?  SportingFlyer T · C 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's less about notability and more about the WP:CONTENTFORK issue.  If the article really encompasses any number of countries associated with the Caribbean region and/or the Caribbean sea, then the term should disambiguate/redirect to "Caribbean."  That covers the territory.  We only need a freestanding article if there is evidence that the term "Caribbean Basin" means something specific and different from "Caribbean."  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 12:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I liked reading this link from the article .  It comes from an ecological perspective but the point is that many different organizations, discliplines, or analysts may use several names with different and inconsistent definitions for the region and subregions.  You could make a big complex Euler diagram out of them.  But just because each of these names is used in depth does not mean there's something more to say that justifies the need for a separate article.  So sure, maybe Caribbean Basin is notable and I am making an editing decision – there's just not enough to say that this is needed as another article ( WP:NOPAGE ).  Perhaps a page similar to Terminology of the British Isles could break out the differences when sources say X or Y. Reywas92 Talk 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Such a terminology article only seems warranted when a simple disambiguation page is not enough to point readers to what they are looking for.  I think a DP is the proper place to start.  NLeeuw ( talk ) 21:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I still don't really agree - there's lots of scholarly and international sources which use the term "Caribbean Basin" and the book Politics and Development in the Caribbean Basin: Central America and the Caribbean in the New World Order (Grugel, 2015) discusses how the term was used by the United States government in the 1980s to give a specific geographic definition to an area where "Caribbean" is not necessarily a specific geographic identifier.  That book also notes El Salvador is included in spite not touching the Caribbean, as confirmed by this paper.  There's something geographically notable here - it's not just a superfluous term.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As noted above in my earlier comment, it is outside the remit of Wikipedia editors to try to define terms which are not already defined or covered by reliable secondary sources.   Our notability guideline is very clear as to what deserves a stand-alone article and what doesn't.   In my view,  as the one who expanded the article and added other reliable sources, I believe this article  meets WP:GNG .  Our policy on WP:WEIGHT makes it absolutely clear as to how to give weight to sources with differing views.  The issue of weight is not a ground for deletion as noted above.  The content fork argument does not apply here, because the scope is different from the other articles mentioned by other editors.  This article focuses more on a particular geographical region/basin which in part, but not exclusively is motivated by economic/trade, instituted by US law.  I contend that, moving this article to another would end up causing more harm to that article and confuses the reader.  Sending a fully sourced notable article to a disambiguation page not only defeats the purpose of our disambiguation process,  but also cheats the general reader looking for this article.  Of course the article can be expanded even further and much better,  but that is not a ground for deletion, neither is variation in definition which can be resolved by adopting out weight policy.  Tamsier ( talk ) 02:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate your efforts, but I don't think your additions have made the term "Caribbean Basin" as such any more worthy of a stand-alone article separate from Caribbean and Caribbean Sea .  You've not changed the definition in the opening line either, so let's do a close-reading comparison: "Caribbean Basin" according to Caribbean Basin : the Caribbean Sea and any territories in or touching the Caribbean Sea.  "Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean : a subregion of the Americas that includes the Caribbean Sea and its islands, some of which are surrounded by the Caribbean Sea and some of which border both the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean; the nearby coastal areas on the mainland are sometimes also included in the region.  "Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean Sea : The entire Caribbean Sea area, the West Indies' numerous islands, and adjacent coasts are collectively known as the Caribbean.  I still don't see a difference.  The "Geographic area" section you added is wholly WP:UNSOURCED .  The sentence about the Caribbean Basin Initiative indicates that the 1983 U.S. govt law excluded Cuba and Nicaragua from the definition, so the 1983 U.S. govt law cannot be used to support the definition or the "Caribbean Basin region" altname.  It is also at odds with your WP:UNSOURCED "Geographical area" section, which explicitly includes Cuba.  The Mount/Randall source is invoked to say the Caribbean became "an American lake" .  But if "the Caribbean" is something else than "the Caribbean Basin", this whole sentence is irrelevant and out of place in this article, or very sloppily added.  The Pastor source is similarly invoked to say the USA never saw itself as a Caribbean nation , and ...all the nations in and around the Caribbean Sea seemed to have... , which is irrelevant as well if those words mean something else than "Caribbean Basin".  If they do mean the same, then you have just proven our case that "Caribbean Basin" does not merit a stand-alone article, but is just a synonym of "Caribbean", namely: the Caribbean Sea, its islands and the continental coasts of the Caribbean Sea.  I rest my case.  NLeeuw ( talk ) 16:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's clearly not a synonym - it's a specific geostrategic definition.  I've added additional sources to the article and cleaned up the lede to note that El Salvador is generally included, which completely negates your argument, and I have not yet included the footnote from this article which clearly defines why this term is of practical importance.  SportingFlyer T · C 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a specific geostrategic definition for a particular source.  Quote from page v, note 1 of the Rand paper you linked: "Throughout this study the term 'Caribbean Basin' will be defined as the geographic area of the Caribbean Sea, including all the rim islands, all littoral states (from Mexico to Venezuela), and three countries not geographically contiguous to the Caribbean: El Salvador in Central America, and Guyana and Suriname on the Atlantic (see map facing p.1). Thus used, 'Caribbean Basin' denotes a specific geostrategic region that has special importance for the United States. This differs from the reference used in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which has an economic focus on the smaller, less-developed countries of the region, thereby excluding Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela."  That source is highlighting the fact that there is no single definition of "Caribbean Basin" and choosing one for its own research purposes.  This gets to the point that @ Nederlandse Leeuw and @ Reywas92 and I have been making: this is a widely used term that means different things in different contexts but that generally aligns with the regional definition of " Caribbean ."  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well said, Dclemens1971.  I think that attempts to find more sources on "Caribbean Basin", although certainly done in good faith, have so far amounted to little more than WP:REFBOMB of the "lacking significant coverage" i.e. brief namechecking type (no. #1), "verify random facts" type (no. #2), and "name-drop" type (no. #4).  There is no good case for a stand-alone article (nor for outright deletion, but I have given up that proposal already), but there is a good case for a disambiguation page now.  NLeeuw ( talk ) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, these arguments are completely ridiculous - something is notable if it's been covered significantly by multiple sources, and many, many different sources use the definition to discuss an otherwise arbitrary geography.  There's absolutely a good case for a stand-alone article - the article covers a term used to define a specific region, used in scholarly articles, that does not overlap any other term, and the books and articles that have been written on this area absolutely demonstrate that.  That is what notability is - there's no WP:NOT .  You just don't like it.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, I always love a good article on a term or concept that hasn't been properly covered elsewhere.  I write such articles all the time (or at least, I try to).  I'm open to "Caribbean Basin" meriting a stand-alone article, but I'm afraid I do not see it happening based on the arguments and sources provided on the one hand, and our policies and guidelines on the other.  NLeeuw ( talk ) 22:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no policy and guideline which excludes this, and it passes GNG as a regional geographic definition, including in sources not yet cited such as the New Third World, which contains a chapter on Caribbean Basin countries, again noting the inclusion of countries such as El Salvador.  The arguments for deletion so far assume it's a generic term, which it is clearly not, and dismiss the sourcing.  SportingFlyer T · C 22:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no policy and guideline which excludes this Well, I started this AfD by invoking WP:OR / WP:SYNTH , and WP:UNSOURCED , and later WP:REFBOMB .  Subsequently, others have invoked WP:POVFORK , WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NOPAGE .  Our arguments are based on solid policies and guidelines.  (For the sake of completeness, you and Tamsier are the only ones arguing for a keep, invoking WP:BEFORE , WP:GNG , WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT . Of course, the quantity of policies and guidelines invoked does not necessarily say anything about their quality and relevance for this AfD.)  NLeeuw ( talk ) 08:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OR doesn't apply since this isn't original research, and WP:SYNTH doesn't apply since we are stating what the sources say after a bit of cleanup.  There are only 11 sources in the article at the moment.  WP:POVFORK doesn't apply because Caribbean Basin and the Caribbean are two separate concepts.  There's no good reason to delete this - it's a now decently sourced specific geographic concept.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  05:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  07:29, 11 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus