Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C & F Agent

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. If there is no Wiktionary entry ... add one. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C & F Agent[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to consist entirely of what are essentially two short dictionary definitions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no entry in http://en.wiktionary.org/ about "C & F agent"

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.

Delete, weakly: ...means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, connected with the clearing and forwarding operations in any manner to any other person and includes a consignment agent... Well, isn't that enlightening? This is apparently a term of art in the tax law of India. As such it might be possible to expand this with encyclopedic information; but right now a Wiktionary entry that says that "C & F agent" stands for "clearing and forwarding agent" and is used in the English of India would seem enough. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no entry in http://en.wiktionary.org/ about "C & F agent", but you have said, "Wiktionary entry that says that "C & F agent" stands for "clearing and forwarding agent"? ".

115.187.33.236 (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and unsourced at that. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no entry in http://en.wiktionary.org/ about "C & F agent" but in Wikipedia

115.187.33.236 (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article C & F Agent or, Clearing and Forwarding Agent, has a specific definition as per Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 (of India) - see Section - 65. Clause - 25 - Definition of Clearing and forwarding agent. Clearing and Forwarding Agent is a widely used term applied in the tax law of India but definitely not a term exclusively applicable only for a dictionary entry. -- Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that. No term is "exclusively applicable only for a dictionary entry": the whole point of a dictionary is to define terms which are used in places other than the dictionary. The point at issue is not whether the term exists only as a dictionary definition, but whether this Wikipedia article amounts to no more than a couple of dictionary definitions. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (1) The essential content of the first definition is "Clearing and Forwarding Agent means someone providing a service connected with clearing and forwarding", which I think we could have guessed. The definition is more verbose than that, including such expressions as "providing any service, either directly or indirectly", because that is the way legal definitions work, to avoid doubts as to applicability, but such legalistic detail is out of place in an encyclopaedic article. Similar remarks apply to the second definition. If we remove such extraneous details (which would be necessary if the article were to be kept) then we will be left with content far too trivial to serve any useful purpose. (2) A definition taken from a legal statute, such as this one, really means "to avoid any doubt, when we use this expression in this document, what we mean is so and so". Thus the definition is intended to apply only within the statue in question, and not externally. To give such a definition out of context, as though it applied generally, is not helpful. (3) All this is, of course, additional to the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2011 (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.