Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth free trade
- 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Commonwealth free trade
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Commonwealth free trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a vague topic with limited value, furthermore has been poorly cited for a over a decade. This has led to various misinformation occuring through out the article. In turn, the majority of properly sourced information is spoken about on their own dedicated pages without an explanation for their relevance to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevoLake (talk • contribs)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to "Imperial Preference" it was a thing at one time to have free trade among members of the British Empire, but as the empire has faded, free-trade has evolved. Being in the Commonwealth isn't such as an important factor for Canada for instance as being part of the Empire was for trade. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just because it has disapeared or evolved doesn't make this unimoportant PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)- ● Keep - Article is well referenced & we have learned about this in school. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Having learned about it in school is not really a valid reason for this instance. But it is fair game for ]
- ◆Comment-
- Added these books to the see also section & cited them in the article:
- The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection[1]
- Free Trade Reimagined: The World Division of Labor and the Method of Economics[2]
- Free Trade[3]
- Free Trade and Prosperity: How Openness Helps the Developing Countries Grow Richer and Combat Poverty[4] PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Having learned about it in school is not really a valid reason for this instance. But it is fair game for ]
- ● Keep - Article is well referenced & we have learned about this in school. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I just heard this concept talked about on the Indicator podcast from NPR, plus the article is well sourced. What's the Commonwealth good for? Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- added the podcast above to "see also" section and cited it with the link you provided above. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
References
- ISBN 978-0-13-143354-0.
- ISBN 978-0-691-14588-4.
- ISBN 978-0-7377-6055-2.
- ISBN 978-0-19-091449-3.
- 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.