Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free trade debate


 * 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 redirect to Free trade. If there is anything worth merging over from this article into the target that isn't already there, it can be done so. (non-admin closure) Steven   Crossin  01:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Free trade debate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is in horrible shape. It reads like a mish-mash of personal essays. The sourcing is severely lacking, with the bulk of the text being unsourced. Short of deleting most of the text and almost starting anew, the article is beyond repair. There is no reason why the debate over free trade cannot be included on the 'Free Trade' page, which gets more traffic and is far more comprehensive and substantive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to free trade. There is nothing that could be here that couldn't be better covered, in greater context, in the main article on free trade or protectionism. We should probably avoid having these kind of "point/counterpoint" articles for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they heighten the likelihood to make everything into a Crossfire-style mashup rather than an deliberative article that summarizes the evidence and array of scholarly sources on a point. Note that capital punishment debate redirects to capital punishment. Neutralitytalk 00:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - the article is a bit long and rambling. The is probably some useful information that can be salvage if the decision to delete the article is made. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a non-encyclopedic concoction; reads like a polemic of unknown purpose. Delete per WP:TNT. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect. There certainly is a debate on free trade, and it looks like the parent article is better than whatever this article is.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:23, 5 July 2017 (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.