Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balanced trade
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balanced trade[edit]
- Balanced trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable. Never heard of it in any scolarly work, not on my course, no references. Larklight (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is such a thing or concept and I have added a reference to support it. However it is not well known and is really more of a desire than a specific mechanism of policy. I am unaware of any nations that actually engage in such a policy. JodyB talk 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think it would be better merged with another article, as it appears to be totally non-notable, and not an improvement on riccardo at all. Larklight (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Whether or not the theory itself is an improvement or is fundamentally distinct from an older position isn't that important. If the article asserts notability through sources then that's that. I submit that one paper from an adherent of the policy doesn't count as notable. Protonk (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge The concept seems obvious and the term is used frequently. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the are a fair few hits, many of them aren't refering to the term in this capacity, both in a more general economic useage and in non-economic useage. Larklight (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since it appears to be a legitimate theory with sources. Paradoxsociety (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Colonel Warden. Oren0 (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
0 according to Colonel Warden. --Prius 2 (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.