Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset recovery

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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator, CrypticBacon. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asset recovery

Previous AfD nomination resulted in No Concensus, with 5 deletes and 4 keeps. This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I fail to see any content here. This information belongs in either foreclosure or bankruptcy. CrypticBacon 09:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as self-ref dicdef. See also my vote in the previous AFD. Stifle 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. The article survived AfD less than two weeks ago. I fail to see any compelling reason to renom at this point. A simple google search shows that this is a business term that can be expanded. If the nom does not see any content then why not use some of those google hits, or even go right to google scholar, for material that can be added to the article. -- JJay 09:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps we could have some explanation for why the nom has previously speedy tagged this article, then left uncivil edit summaries with Kill This in all caps [1], nominated once for Afd, then placed a Prod tag [2] following survival on AfD in violation of Prod rules, and has now renominated for AfD. That is a lot of activity for two weeks for an article on a valid topic that can be improved. -- JJay 09:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• No problem! Because "This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I fail to see any content here. This information belongs in either foreclosure or bankruptcy.", as stated in the nomination. --CrypticBacon 10:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• See above where I talk about expansion. That, or perhaps use of merge tags, would have been a reasonable approach as opposed to edit warring with the editors involved in the article. Furthermore, if you feel the information belongs somewhere else, why have you tried four times to have it removed? Why was no comment ever left on the article talk page?-- JJay 10:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn Sorry for violating protocol, I wasn't completely familiar with the the new prod rules. I have my doubts as to how good or thourough of an article this can become, but who knows, maybe it will turn into something more than a dicdef. Otherwise, if in several weeks it isn't expanded, we might just consider merging it into the aformentioned articles? What are your thoughts? --CrypticBacon 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's fine. Why not leave a message like that on article talk page? -- JJay 10:41, 4 March 2006 (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.