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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Customs Clearance China

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 04:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Plenty of coverage in GBooks. It is, for example, discussed on 21 separate pages of "Quick Reference to the Trade and Customs Law of China". James500 (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this page to Customs clearance in China. James500 (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Needs improvement but that is no reason to delete. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an important topic. There have been news stories about issues relating to this, so it is certainly notable. Not every country however would also be notable. But for all major trading countries, and even historical entities, such an article could be written. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2014 (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.