Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes


 * 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   delete. The consensus here is that the topic is potentially notable, but insufficient sources were cited to establish that. A new version of the article might be acceptable if better sourced. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not expand nor improve information at Kretek. Additionally, article is about a single legal case (and appeal) between two specific countries, while title suggests global aspect. Delete or rename and redirect to above section. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  03:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of independent notability for this single case, which is already covered in an article which already describes it better, and puts it in context. I can see no merit in a redirect either - who is going to be searching under the uninformative name of a single legal case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Minor topic that does not deserve a separate article. Shii (tock) 17:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Results in GBooks for the title (Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes) and short title (US—Clove Cigarettes) of this case and for cognate expressions clearly indicate that the case has received significant coverage (such as this detailed discussion of it). This case satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. It would be totally absurd to suggest that this article be deleted for lack of notability. [Alternatively (and this is probably completely academic)] the page name is clearly a plausible redirect because many books cite the case by that name. Practising and academic lawyers, public officials, [students] and other people interested in international law and particularly WTO dispute settlement will search for the case by this name. The case is not just about cigarettes. It is also relevant to certain aspects of international law such as the interpretation of various treaties (e.g. What does likeness mean in article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement?). There is also nothing wrong with the present page name which is the official name of the case (except that it is supposed to begin with the words "United States" followed by a hyphen). The case will have a global aspect if it prohibits other countries from doing what the US did (which is likely to be the case). James500 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Words in square brackets inserted. James500 (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Practising and academic lawyers, public officials and other people interested in international law and particularly WTO dispute settlement will search for the case by this name". Quite possibly - though one might assume that they would also confine searches to more trustworthy sources than an online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia is not a legal database, and it seems safe to assume that anyone knowing the name of the case will know where to find it in more conventional places to engage in such research. There is no merit whatsoever in Wikipedia merely duplicating such sources, less reliably. And as for what 'aspects' the case 'will' have, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia. It should be possible for grown up people to use Wikipedia for the purpose of serious study. Wikipedia is a legal encyclopedia (and a science enclopedia, an art encyclopedia, a history enclopedia, and every type of encyclopedia) so there is nothing wrong with having articles on legal topics. People who know the name of the case may not want to look at more conventional sources, which are normally behind paywalls of one form or another, are subject to copyright, and whose coverage is broken up in an inconvienient manner (into lots of different books, articles etc. instead of being in one place). The effect of WP:NOR is that everything on Wikipedia is duplication in the sense that it merely a compilation of information published elsewhere. There is certainly a value in "duplicating" (in that sense which really means "compiling") information that is only obtainable from sources that are neither free (to both read and reproduce) nor convieniently organised. And as for CRYSTALBALL, it is fairly obvious that the book I cited is treating the case as a binding or persuasive precendent because otherwise there would be no reason to mention it. CRYSTALBALL has no application to stare decisis. One does not use precedents to predict the future. One cites them to establish what the law is now. James500 (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case the precedent has been set, and it is called WP:A10. This topic is more sufficiently and thoroughly discussed at the Kretek section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriendrew (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * CSD A10 has no application to this article. [That is why Andy's CSD nomination was rejected by another user.] This case cannot be adequately discussed in the article Kretek because it is not just about cigarettes. It is mainly about the interpretation of the treaties in question. We cannot put a discussion of, in particular, the interpretation of the concept of likeness in article 2.1 of the TBT agreement advanced in this case into our article on Kretek because it is only tangentially relevant. The book that I cited suggested that the reasoning in this case was relevant to, for example, restrictions relating to dolphin friendly tuna. This is not just about clove cigarettes. In any event this case satisfies GNG and that means the article should be kept. We do not merge articles just because they are stubs (WP:IMPERFECT). We expand them. (We do not delete plausible redirects either). I suggest that you stop trying to delete stubs, which is a complete waste of time, and start expanding them. James500 (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Words in square brackets inserted as correction of previous text. James500 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If the article "is not just about clove cigarettes" it clearly needs another title, and a complete rewrite, explaining what it is actually about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The page name is the official title of the case. The fact that you consider it misleading is irrelevant. That is like arguing that Flat Earth should be renamed because the Earth isn't flat. Whilst the article certainly needs expansion, it doesn't need a complete rewrite. It doesn't say anything false as far as I can see, it just fails to mention something important. This has reached the point where you are increasingly clutching at straws. There are no policy based or practical reasons whatsoever to delete this article. James500 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * James: I suggest you stop listening to yourself talk and improve the article yourself, WP:Put up or shut up, as was suggested in the previous discussions on this article author's other AfDs. I did not CSD this article, nor the previous deleted version before this, so get your facts straight. Constantly badgering and berating other users does not improve the article.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  23:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my mistaken comment about CSD. I have [corrected] the remark.
 * In all fairness you are the ones badgering my keep !vote. You could have just let it stand instead of trying to get the last word. You'll notice that I haven't replied to anyone else's !vote. It is only my !vote that is attracting this.
 * I don't need to improve the article because AfD is not cleanup. I do not run an edit on demand service and it is not reasonable to ask me to do so. James500 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nice amount of potential sources out there. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. This existing article is currently  less complete than the discussion in the general article. I think it does fall under A10, and I would have accepted the speedy. But for a questioned speedy to come here is the right procedure.  Of course, if anyone cares to write an article expanding on it, then it would be a valid article, but not until then.  Had a better article been written, there would have been no problem in the first place  DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 May 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.