Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear


 * 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. as a copyright violation of this page. SmartSE (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear

 * – ( 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/Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from Indonesia &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(talk)  21:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the story behind this article is that certain countries, including Indonesia, alleged that Argentina had violated two international treaties (the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and the Agreement on Safeguards) 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 sources. The fact that those sources are written in cryptic legalese is not an excuse to delete the article. James500 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE has no application whatsoever to this article. James500 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:N as far as I am able to discern. Cited sources are primary and are not generally used to establish notability. This does indeed appear to be a textbook case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What is the claim to encyclopedic notability here? On a side note many of your comments below seem to suggest that it is the nom's responsibility to prove an article should be deleted. Actually that is not the case. Articles must clearly demonstrate notability. The burden of proof lies with the creator and and any other defending editors. WP:IMPERFECT articles can and generally should be kept. But IMPERFECT doesn't apply to notability. That can't be fixed. It's either there or it isn't. Right now I'm not seeing it. I remain open to reconsideration if any WP:RS sources are found that establish encyclopedic notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Whilst lack of notability is a valid argument for deletion, it has nothing to do with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WP:INDISCRIMINATE prohibits summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, excessive listings of statistics and exhaustive logs of software updates. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is simply not engaged by this article.
 * Articles do not have to demonstrate notability. If sources exist, they do not need to be present. WP:BEFORE requires the nominator to look for sources and positively confirm that they don't exist. Have you looked for sources using Google? That is an absolute minimum requirement for arguing that a topic is not notable. Apparent failure to comply with WP:BEFORE, evidenced by equivocal statements as to whether it has been complied with, is a valid reason to reject a nomination. James500 (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I am not the nominator, I have indeed done a Google search and I found nothing that rings the notability bell. Again I am open to reconsideration if reliable and verifiable sources are found that establish an argument for encyclopedic notability. As of right now I'm not seeing it. So where is the WP:N? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Searches for argentina import footwear, "argentina footwear" (the short title) and "Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear" in GBooks bring up a substantial number of sources about the case. What is wrong with them? James500 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick look at the first couple pages found that some of the sources are primary and the others appeared to be citations or footnotes in books dealing with much broader topics. In short they appeared to be trivial and lacking the in depth coverage by reliable secondary sources. That said it is possible that citations of legal cases alone might be sufficient to ring the notability bell. I am unsure, as this topic is not explicitly covered in WP:N. But some projects have informal guidelines to notability for project specific topics. As such I have taken the liberty of posting an RfC on the talk page of the WP:LAW project asking for some input. Perhaps they can shed some light on this. In the meantime I will keep my eye on the page for further developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not primary and looks like more than a citation or footnote. I think that the title of the case must at least be a plausible redirect to our article on GATT since it appears to say something about the interpretation of the treaty. James500 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's enough for GNG. But I won't quibble about a redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This, in my opinion, is clearly significant coverage. It has its own section which is much more detailed than many articles in other encyclopedias such as Britanicca. James500 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 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) 01:21, 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) 01:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has no context. Without looking at the references I have no idea what it is about. The same goes for the other article by the same author. If someone can rescue it, fine. As is the article makes no sense.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  01:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense. The references provide context. You have to look at them. James500 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And the fact that an article is written in legalese that you would have to be an expert to understand does not make it nonsense. Nonsense, for the purposes of CSD, is something that no one could understand because it is meaningless gibberish like "dhrgkkynmfbjdxndjycgdnikvd" (a word I produced by pressing keys at random). Since the content of the article is taken verbatim from the website of the World Trade Organisation, we can infer that it is not nonsense, even if its meaning is obscure. James500 (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:A1 is no context to explain or identify the meaning of the article or title, and since the information is obtainable via searches I did not press for CSD, instead bringing it to AfD as an unsuitable article. I did not claim WP:G1 for gibberish nonsense. An article should not require me to look at reference citations to explain the basic idea that is being presented. The references are there for verifiability and in a sense further reading if I desired more detail. The article should, at the most basic level, explain the background of the dispute/conflict.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  03:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please identify, by name, the policy or guideline which you think requires the deletion of this article. It seems to me that you are suggesting this article should be deleted because it is WP:IMPERFECT, and that will not suffice. James500 (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It fails the most basic WP:ARTICLE principle of "The article should contain a readable summary of everything within the scope, given due weight, based on what reliable sources say". There is no summary of the dispute nor wikilinks to anything related to the dispute, therefore making no sense to me or probably anyone without any knowledge of said disputes.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  05:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That will not justify a deletion because it is a problem that can be fixed by editing. WP:ARTICLE is not marked as a policy or guideline and should not be followed in preference to real policies. WP:IMPERFECT, on the other hand, is certainly policy and should therefore be followed. In any event, WP:ARTICLE does not suggest that articles should be deleted (instead of being fixed) for the reason you mention. It is clear to me that the arguments you have made are completely without merit and that you are wasting my time by throwing up chaff. James500 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In the time you have wasted trying to discredit anyone's opinion you could have made improvements to the article or merge it into an appropriate master article. WP:Some People Like To Hear Themselves Talk and Others Try To Help.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  17:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If I did not advise you that the arguments you advanced are erroneous, you might go around repeating them elsewhere. James500 (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per 'is this a random paragraph copy-pasted from somewhere'? It makes precisely zero sense otherwise - the title mentions 'imports' and 'footwear' but the article body (such as it is) says nothing about either. And as for 'so fix it' arguments, the article fails to provide sufficient context to determine what 'it' is, never mind whether 'it' meets our notability guidelines. The WTO has (or hasn't?) done something or other about shoe imports involving Indonesia and Argentina? Whoop-de-doo. Good for them. Why should Wikipedia care? Provide evidence of notability (which will at least let us know what it is that is supposed to be notable - so far, I haven't a clue) and then we can have a sensible discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article very clearly identifies its subject as a dispute between Argentina and other certain other countries over the formers' import regulations regarding footwear which were alleged to violate a treaty that the WTO is responsible for upholding which resulted in some kind of legal proceedings at the WTO. Any suggestion that the article fails to provide sufficient context to identify its subject is simply manifest nonsense. The problem is that you do not understand the source cited in the article. James500 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The article does nothing of the sort. All it does is provide a copy-pasted summary, and then cite a source which tells us little more. As for your comments about my level of education, <-redacted->. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I could only answer your first two sentences by repeating what I have already said. James500 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Highly advanced legal training" is completely and utterly irrelevant (not that I see any particular reason to assume that you have any). What matters here is whether evidence has been provided that the subject matter in question meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Which it self-evidently doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The topic does satisfy GNG, unless you want to construe the requirement for significant coverage in a manner that is so preposterously restrictive that it would, if widely enforced, probably kill the project stone dead. James500 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and I'm sure that the legal profession is relieved to hear that. meanwhile, since you have entirely failed to provide evidence that the subject of this article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines (or even that the article actually has a meaningful subject), it is going to be deleted. Now run away and do something useful, rather than wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to take your bait. James500 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that in violation of talk page guidelines, James500 has edited several of his comments long after they have been responded to, thus making a nonsense of the above discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, checking again, it is evident that the 'article' was nothing but a direct copy-paste of the summary in the source - almost certainly a copyright violation, which I have tagged accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The WTO policy regarding copyright is here. It does allow the use of "unrestricted official WTO documents and legal texts" (whatever that means). If that does not cover the contents of the article (I've no idea whether it does), then it may be the article should be speedily deleted per CSD G11. James500 (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been looking around and can't find anything that remotely comes close to ringing the notability bell for this. And I think the A1 argument is valid (though of course that's up to the reviewing Admin). In any event I have tagged this for CSD on A1 and A7 grounds. With regards to G11 I don't think that applies. I am fairly sure that the copy and paste is from stuff that's within the public domain though I could be wrong. Of course the copy and paste does nothing to help establish notability. Anyways I will let the reviewing Admin see if there is anything here worth arguing over in AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the A1 and A7 tags as I am fairly certain they are not applicable. I would not be sufficiently confident to remove a G11 tag. James500 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion this case or dispute clearly satisfies GNG having received extensive coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. It also satisfies CASES (which although not a guideline is analogous to things said in NBOOKS about citations) by being frequently cited as a precedent and by being alleged to be a groundbreaking and particularly novel one. If the article is deleted for copyright reasons, the name of the case should be immediately redirected to General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and recreated as soon as possible with non-infringing content. James500 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No evidence whatsoever has been presented of 'extensive coverage in independent reliable secondary sources'. Half a page in a book isn't 'extensive' - particularly when it isn't even clear that the book is discussing the Argentinian-Indonesian case which is supposedly the topic of the article. And for the record, I find James500's attempts to browbeat contributors into agreement through appeals to (unverified) authority, personal attacks, and sheer bloody-mindedness entirely contrary to the manner in which deletion discussions are supposed to be conducted. I think it is safe to assume that the person closing this debate will ignore such irrelevances, and instead look at arguments presented in relation to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Other people may not share your opinions about what "extensive" means. In my opinion, it is obvious that the book is talking about the case in hand. I have made no appeals to authority whatsoever. The only person engaging in "browbeating", "personal attacks" and "sheer bloodymindedness" is yourself. You are the one who told me to go and do something so sexually obscene that I am not prepared to repeat it. James500 (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you are full of crap. A book discussing a case involving Indonesia would actually mention Indonesia, one would assume. But then again, the Wikipedia article in question, despite supposedly being about 'footwear' and 'imports', fails to mention either. So who knows what the article is actually about? Road Traffic Regulations in Mongolia? The applicability of Licences to crenellate to beach huts in Eastbourne? Regulations concerning the cultivation of bananas in Antarctica? It may as well be, for all it tells us... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And in my opinion, I am not "full of crap". James500 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to reviewing Admin I reiterate my strong belief that this article as it stands should be speedy deleted on A1 and A7 grounds. And I wish to also note for the record that I take strenuous exception to the removal of the CSD tags by James500, which, while technically legal, in this case amount to an arbitrary veto by one editor of a request for an Admin review for possible CSD, despite the fact that all the other contributing editors in this discussion have expressed serious A1 concerns. Edits of this type are, in my opinion, inconsistent with the spirit if not the letter of the law. Beyond which I share some of the concerns raised by AndyTheGrump in his above comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you are upset that I removed the CSD tags, but CSD is meant for uncontroversial or urgent deletions, and this, with the possible exception of copyright issues is neither. I hope this doesn't sound like a quibble, but Rinfoli did not mention A1 in his !vote above. James500 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Observation This AfD seems to be devolving into a shouting match. That's not something I have any interest in participating in. If the article is substantially improved I will reconsider things Until then my delete !vote stands based as per my last comment. Beyond that I haven't seen anything constructive posted here in a while and am moving on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 21 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.