Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from Indonesia


 * 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   speedy delete per G12 as the article was entirely copied from section 2 of this page SmartSE (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from Indonesia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Borderline WP:A1 without any form of history or back-story. It might belong as a paragraph in another article (if one can be found), but not as a stand-alone article.
 * Similar article at Articles for deletion/Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(talk)  21:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the story behind this article is that Indonesia alleged that Korea had violated two international treaties (the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and the Anti-Dumping Agreement) and asked the World Trade Organisation, which is, IIRC, responsible for upholding GATT and presumably the other treaty to do something about that. It seems to be a request for some kind of abitration. See this. A1 is not applicable. It is obvious this article is about the particular dispute referred to in the source. The fact that the source is written in cryptic legalese is not an excuse to delete the article. James500 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE has no application whatsoever to this article. James500 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, missing WP:RS.   Rinfoli   { *Di§cu$ with me"# } 10:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The World Trade Organisation is clearly a reliable source. James500 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * At this point, no valid rationale for deletion has been offered by the nominator or anyone else, so this will be closed as a keep by default unless someone makes some constructive comments about the notability of the dispute that is the subject of this article. James500 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No indication of notability whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Searches in GBooks for "Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from Indonesia", "Korea Certain Paper" (the short title of the case) and cognate expressions bring up a substantial number of results that might conceivably satisfy GNG. What is wrong with those sources? James500 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC) This, for example, is clearly not a passing mention. James500 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't give a rat's arse how you 'construe' it - and if you are going to attempt to browbeat contributors into agreement in the same manner you are doing here I shall consider reporting the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that sanctions be taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not browbeating anyone and I would be grateful if you would stop swearing at me and refrain from making further threats. James500 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful if you would go boil your head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. Has received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. James500 (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Individual disputes by the WTO are not inherently notable and there's little (and that's kind) in the way of reliable sources suggesting that this particular dispute is notable. On a side note, I am also finding the conduct of James500 to be questionable - this is not his personal forum. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2014 (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.