Talk:Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce

Justification for being a full page instead of a redirect

Hi! I edited the page to have standalone content about the Bureau, instead of being a redirect to the International Trade Administration, as the offices in the BFDC eventually became both the ITA and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. It was reverted by @Scope creep with the comment "It should be a redirect. Sourcing doesn't cover it."

I believe the sources do cover it. The National Archives guide to BFDC, which I cite, states:

Successor Agencies:

In the Department of Commerce:

Statistical analysis:

Office of Business Economics (1953-72)

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Social and Economic Statistics Administration (1972-75) BEA (1975- )

[...]

Promotion of foreign trade:

International Trade Administration (1980-84)

Promotion of domestic trade and industry and promotion of foreign trade: International Trade Administration (1984- )

Is this insufficient for some reason? The source is a bit convoluted, so perhaps this part was not seen. Thanks! Bequw (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bequw: The article was unsourced. If it was reverted I would to see all of it sourced correctly. If its reverted and you don't source, then the next step for me would be to send it to Afd. You can't have an unsourced article in mainspace. Every sentence needs a reference. I think the article is a potentially good article on a historical subject. I would like to see it come back. scope_creep^Talk 08:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Thanks for the feedback. I've tried again with a page, this time trying to more closely tie the sources to the page content. Bequw (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There are tons of sources. I have added a book. Викидим (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)