Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Re-exportation (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. John254 00:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-exportation
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously nominated for deletion in April 2006, on the gounds that it was a dicdef - and it still is! Result was "No Consensus". Among the comments from those supporting 'keep' were "Seems it could be expanded to a decent article" and "important issue in internation trade". However, since then, the only significant edit to the article has been what the editor describes accurately as "(definition added)". It is still no more than a dicef and after almost three years since creation and two years since AfD it is certainly going to remain such. Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm sure that if an editor wanted to roll up his sleeves and give it a try, they could find links, references and examples of this from customs manuals, historical records and the like.  I'm too busy improving like, 3 other articles that have been put up for AfD, so I'm essentially out of commission on that end.  Anyway, keep due to potential for improvement and expansion.  Cel  Talk to me  15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It needs a stub template at least but as Celarnor has said it could be improved and extended - Highfields (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: It should be kept in mind that deletion is for articles whose subject is not notable or verifiable; the quality of an article in and of itself is not grounds for deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment Agreed, which is why I never mentioned the quality or lack of, but it's a dicdef! Which is precisely why no editor has 'rolled up his sleeves' and done anything for three years! How on earth can it be 'improved and extended'? A better definition? Having studied economics, I cannot see this ever being more than a dicdef. Emeraude (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've rescue tagged this for a WP:HEY last stand. If no one improves this article by the end of this AfD, I'm OK with it going away -- RoninBK T C 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per RoninBK this is a classic WP:HEY example. If this cannot be improved beyond a dictionary definition I too am okay for it being removed for the time being.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (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.