Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Caribbean

:{{la|German Caribbean}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/German_Caribbean Stats])

:({{Find sources|German Caribbean}})

There are [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Deutsche+Karibik%22+1888 no sources] about a [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Deutsche+Karibik%22+Cura%C3%A7ao&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 "Deutsche Karibik"]. The article seems to be a hoax. --Otberg (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. The page creator has a history of hoax edits supported by non-existent references. They were very cleverly done, and would have been convincing to a casual observer. After I noted the fake references to his earlier edits, I confronted the editor and he seemed to turn over a new leaf and make what I deemed at the time to be constructive edits (the references themselves are real). Glancing at this again, however, I see how the references support more superfluous points. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• :Withholding judgment for the moment, pending additional information from Rjensen. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• ::Keep following complete re-write, possibly re-name or merge if there is a better title or location for this new information. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete appears to be a hoax - I just checked the article from Geographical Review used as a citation for a claim comparing this to the German empire in the Pacific, and it doesn't mention any attempt to establish a presence in the Caribbean. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Delete - Concur with hoax assessment. It is very clever though, the article begins with a true statement "In the mid 1860s Prussian military leaders considered building a coal station in the Caribbean, ..." but it goes off into fantasy land after that. --Noleander (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• :That material seems to have been added recently by an entirely different editor in good faith. I have asked him if this subject may be independently notable of the likely hoax material. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete even AGF regarding the recent material, the article seems a hoax. Any verifiable info can be used in articles on German colonization schemes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This is not a hoax. The idea was never a colony of settlers but rather a naval coaling station for use by the German fleet. I added new material including cites to two scholarly books. The Germans were interested but never accomplished anything. The US Navy was seriously worried that Germany would succeed. Actually Germany turned its attention instead to Mexico -- in the Caribbean of course--and that led to substantial german activity there (1911-17) and a German proposal for a military alliance in the Zimmermann Telegram of 1917. Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

::Rjensen: can you provide a quote from the new sources that specifically says that Germany planned to land settlers; and tried to build a naval facility on Klein Curaçao. I don't mind changing my !vote, but I'd like to see some specifics first. --Noleander (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:::To be more precise: I think it is clear that the sources say that Germany wanted a Caribbean presence; but the problem with the article is the detail about settlement etc that is not supported (yet) by sources. Also, what source says that this effort was called "German Caribbean"? --Noleander (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:::The article tells us: In 1888 German naval engineers landed on Klein Curaçao, a small island southeast of Curaçao, to undertake the construction of a naval shipyard... This ist obviously nonsens. Please do not mix up this nonsens with other things, like general German interests in the Caribbean. A "German Caribbean" or "Deutsche Karibik" or some other kind of German Caribbean colony did not exist in this century. --Otberg (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:::(edit conflict × 2) I think Noleander's concern over a "German Caribbean" neologism is significant, particularly considering User:Bermudanights's hoax article "Possession spillage". You could argue that "possession spillage" is a real phenomenon (things do fall out of your pockets while riding a roller coaster), but it was still a non-notable neologism that was made up and supported with fake references. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:::I find no evidence that there was ever a German landing in 1888. The little island was so small that a lighthouse is about all it could hold. So I deleted it. However, the German Navy did have a longstanding interest in the Caribbean. and it worsened relations with the US -- almost to the point of war in 1902 and actually to war (via Zimmermann telegram) in 1917. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep There were multiple colonial ventures by German states in the Caribbean. For example, did you know that that in 1685, the Brandenburgisch-Africanische Compagnie took control of the slave trade on Saint Thomas, and for some time the largest slave auctions in the world were held there? We could perhaps merge this article with German colonization of the Americas. Warden (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, but we are talking about the article "German Caribbean" or "Deutsche Karibik" which never existed in real (is is a fakename). You should write a new article about German colonial interests in the Caribbean. But not in an article called "German Caribbean" which suggests there were any colony in real. --Otberg (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:Agree... that is the point I was trying to make above. What source uses the phrase "German Caribbean" (which is a very specific proper name)? If no source uses it, then the article should be either deleted; or renamed; or merged into German colonization of the Americas? --Noleander (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:* The article in question is about the proposition of establishing a German base in Curacao which is discussed in sources such as Die überseeische Stützpunktpolitik der preußisch-deutschen Kriegsmarine 1859-1883 and So kam das Meer zu uns: die preussisch-deutsche Kriegsmarine in Übersee 1822 bis 1914. This is not a hoax. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so the exact phrase(s) used to lead readers to the topic is a matter of convenience, not definition. Warden (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:::What about a merger into German colonization of the Americas? Or, if stays as a dedicated article, how about changing title to Curacao German naval base? --Noleander (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

::::There never was a colony or a naval base. What we have a re a variety of proposals in Berlin that never came to fruition. Washington and Berlin took them seriously, and they did threaten war in 1902. It does not fir well with German colonization of the Americas because a) that deals with very small colonies 200 years earlier b) in that article "German" means language--the nation of Germany did not exist.

:::::Okay, so Germany had plans to build a naval outpost (coaling station?) on a tiny island near Curacao, but they never came to fruition; and it was not related to colonization, so the merger into German colonization of the Americas is not right. I dunno .... mere plans that never came to fruition? I'm not sure this is notable enough for its own article. There must be some article on German military planning efforts around 1900 that this could be merged into. How about merging into Military history of Germany? --Noleander (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::is it notable enough? Well we have numerous German and American scholars writing about it and making the point that it became very important indeed to US naval policy. -- so much so that Roosevelt threatened war in 1902 if the Germans took control of a port in Venezuela. The Germans were rapidly building up their fleet, but the ships ran on coal and in a war with Britain the fleet would only operate near German controlled coaling stations. (Oil solved this problem much later because a ship could carry enough oil to go on long-range missions). The business about the little island is now also gone--that was the hoax part. Germany kept trying to get a station in different locations but failed each time for one reason or another (Bismarck said no, Netherlands would not sell, US said no, Mexico said no). With the hoax gone I don't see any problems. So let's keep it.Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::::Okay, I guess I'm persuaded. One final issue: The article states "The German Caribbean (German: Deutsche Karibik) was an unsuccessful proposal undertaken by the German Navy (Reichsmarine) during the late nineteenth century to establish a coaling station the Caribbean..." Did we confirm that "Deutsche Karibik" is an official term (proper name) used by the Germans for this initiative? If there is no source that shows that the Germans used that particular phrase for their initiative, then it is not the correct name for this article; in that case it should be German coaling station in Caribbean or Caribbean coaling station for German navy or similar. --Noleander (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::I posted a note at the German WP asking if any editors there could provide input. --Noleander (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::I also asked there at a more fitting place. --Otberg (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:Noleander raises a good point about the name. There were multiple similar projects over 40 years in Berlin and I doubt there ever was a single official German name, so Noleander is right that we should retitle it German coaling station in Caribbean (putting "German" first in title since were the actors and the Caribbean just the geography) Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

::"Deutsche Karibik" is [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Deutsche+Karibik%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 no official term or proper name] used by the Germans at any time. It is a fake name. --Otberg (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:::In that case, the article should be renamed to German coaling station in Caribbean or merged into Military history of Germany. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::renaming yes. But this is diplomatic history rather than military history. Rjensen (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete! Haven't you learn anything from the Bicholim conflict? This is a fake, a hoax, a joke. The references are not citations and are not what they claim to be. Furthermore, none of the German wikipedians have ever heard about it, and I have doubts that the Dutch would believe that. What would it help to rename it or debate if it was a political or diplomatical part of history? It was not history at all, it was a joke. The author played well with some other informations about similar other German attempts o establish a naval base in the Carribean. However, the only story what seems to be similar to that fake was a note of the German admiral Reinhold von Werner about the useful annexion of Curacao (not Klein Curacao) in 1880 (not 1888). --Roksanna (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:::the fake material has been removed and every statement is solidly based on footnotes to scholarly RS that I checked myself--just click on the links in the footnotes to see for yourself. Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

::Fine. Alright. The fake is deleted. Finally. However, it is still No original research. Unlike German Middle Africa the term German Carribean (Deutsche Karibik) is not established in German history or German-speaking area, where does it come from? Was it a real plan, project or concept at all? Do you have any source for that problem? (And: the very small content is barely wort to carry such an article, but this is just a quality problem. There are much better examples of notes you could summarize in such article.) --Roksanna (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:::as discussed above the current title is a problem. I agree that German coaling station in Caribbean would be a better title. The issue led to serious tensions between the US and Germany and has been discussed by several independent scholars (see the footnotes). There is no OR here and it's a legitimate topic. Rjensen (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

::Alright, rename it and possibly enrich or improve the content. However, German coaling station in Caribbean sounds like there really was a station although all these activities and thoughts between 1870(!) and 1917 were attempts only. --Roksanna (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:::True, but I think the convention in WP is that titles do not have to contained "alleged" or "planned" or "purported" qualifiers. E.g. Manned mission to Mars. Adding "Planned" into the title is not a bad thing to do, but might make the title to unwieldy. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::Well, yes. Of course, an article about a German or French invasion of Britain, for example, does not need to be named alleged invasion or planned invasion. Even if these invasions never became true, the plans and projects did really exist. However, a German coaling station in Carribean did not exist AND there never was a strict plan for it. The article could summarize all German thoughts about such a station, that would be fine and interesting, but it should be added that this never was reality and not even was a real plan. Name it Imperial German naval policy in Carribean maybe... Best regards --Roksanna (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}

Here is a list of some possible titles:

1. German diplomatic initiatives in Caribbean
2. German military initiatives in the Caribbean
3. German interest in the Caribbean
4. German coaling station in Caribbean
5. Nineteenth century German diplomatic initiatives in Caribbean
6. German plans for military facilities in Caribbean
7. ... other? ...

The difficulty in selecting a title should be a clue that perhaps the material should be merged. If it is this hard to find a title, that means Reliable Sources do not talk about it as a distinct topic so perhaps WP should not treat it as a distinct topic either. --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep but re-name - the title does not match the notable content. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

::there is nothing to merge it into. The coverage of Germany in the Imperial era is very weak. I do like German interest in the Caribbean -- which sums it up and includes mexico, which has major studies to bolster it. Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

: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.