Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a webhost for academic papers. I dream of horses (C) @ 21:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OP, could you elaborate on your reasons for AfD? I expected to find nothing but an academic paper, but see a host of secondary sources. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like Petrarchan47, I don't see this as being overly academic, although the writing style borders on that. But the content seems appropriately encyclopedic and the references ring true. LaMona (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the TPP has been periodically making headlines here for ~5 years. That's too much coverage to be kept in the main article. Maybe the article needs to be tagged for a couple of things, but not deleted. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, per suggestion from User:L.tak on Talk:Trans-Pacific Partnership and delete the first part of this article, as it duplicates the article on Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. I created this, because the Trans-Pacific Partnership article seemed too long, and the "History" section seemed a naturally self-contained piece that could be split off into separate article. Some contributors have suggested serious "copy editing" that would presumably reduce that section to a tiny fraction of its current size. User:Wuerzele wrote, "The table of negotiation rounds is long, but the info in it is meager and I wouldnt be surprised if in 5-10 years the table is summarized in 3 sentences". The table seems well documented and might be interesting to people who want to understand how something like this gets negotiated. I therefore favor spinning the table and accompanying material into a separate article like the one under discussion here. Then that table can be replaced in the Trans-Pacific Partnership article with a link to the new article and a 3-sentence summary. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well inside Wiki's guidelines NealeFamily (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2015 (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.