Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commoditys In Disputed Seas in Court

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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Commoditys In Disputed Seas in Court

Commoditys In Disputed Seas in Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Needs to be moved to Wikisource As WP:PROD Tag Got Removed By Author Of page Dudel250 (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: and thereafter do not move to Wikisource. The article is a (poorly) paraphrased report of a law suit, to which neither of the references relate, which makes it unverified and thereby a guideline failure for verifiability. User has also created a redirect from BRENDA JUSTICE v GUOLI TIAN, Chairman of the Board, Executive Director, Bank of China Limited, New York,, which apart from the article under discussion, is the only result returned by a Google search for " BRENDA JUSTICE, 14-CV-1843".  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• The article talk page also probably doesn't meet WP:COPYVIO standards since the whole thing appears copied word for word (talk pages shouldn't even be used as random content dumps anyway). --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: The article doesn't really cover a topic, it's just a reworded lawsuit, as mentioned above. There are probably other avenues for this, but creating an article isn't one of them. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a nightmare of flotsam and jetsam of legal urban legend, Chinglish and word salad. Non-notable case. Commodities are misspelled. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete: Describes a lawsuit based on a single subscription source, with no additional citations to indicate why the lawsuit would be notable. Djembayz (talk) 23:16, 16 May 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.