Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grenada and the International Monetary Fund

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 merge‎ to Grenada#Economy. I'm not sure that this is the best Merge target but I go no response to my Relisting comment so I'm just selecting the option most often mentioned here. I hope the editor responsbie for the Merge will use their best judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada and the International Monetary Fund

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article as it stands is sourced either to Wikipedia, to non-independent sources, or to sources with no significant coverage of the supposed subject. WP:BEFORE doesn't show much that couldn't simply be merged to Grenada#Economy at absolute best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Business, and Grenada. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we maybe need to look a bit deeper for sources as I think there may well be academic references which directly address the subject such as 1 and 2 JMWt (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article would have to be be entirely supported on the first source then JMWt. As I said in the nomination, I don't see a reason for an independent article; the second would be far better served being used in Grenada#Economy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's an opinion. As far as I'm concerned in the main we are trying to think about policy, and I can't really see a good reason why there is a lack of notability of a page describing a country's relations with the IMF - when there is academic study describing it as important. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - other than the notability question, this is a very encyclopedic article. The IMF is a reliable source; the question is independence for reliability purposes; I could possibly be persuaded that it's sufficient.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IMF sources fall into the category of "reliable but not independent"; in a case like this, it is valid for use in the article, but I'm not sure you could judge notability merely on that. On the other hand, the Kirton source above seems to indicate there is more likely to be notability than not (though it is quite outdated). Curbon7 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: personally I don't see how an economic analysis of four/five months in 1983 to be sufficient to establish notability; why do you? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I was getting at, and perhaps did not explain well-enough, is that a 23-page scholarly analysis in a reputable journal is an indication that there may be other similar sources (granted, 1983 was a hell of a year for Grenada); I was not making a definitive statement that it alone establishes notability. Curbon7 (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness there are more recent academic journal papers describing the longer term impacts of the IMF intervention. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well-written and encyclopaedic. I think it passes GNG easily as written and the only real problem is a lack of sources. I believe that Curbon7's argument toward RSs-yet-to-be-found is also valuable. I do not think that deletion will improve Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I think the best option is to condense relevant parts into Economy of Grenada. I'm happy to do this, if others agree; just ping me. -- asilvering (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this is not the same as the nom's suggestion to merge it into the economy section of Granada, which I would oppose. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, we have an editor arguing to Keep this article and ones advocating a Merge, either to Economy of Grenada or to Grenada#Economy. Any last thoughts about this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 28 August 2023 (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.