Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset recovery/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 05:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asset recovery

"Asset recovery" seems to be an industry term for what is simply trade. I could maybe see a List of Asset Recovery companies, with a description of what they do, but not an "asset recovery" article. (BTW, I was screwing around with this article, the "real" article that I am nominating is the version where I first placed a speedy delete tag on it.) CrypticBacon 01:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. In all fairness, asset recovery is a specific set of business transactions, usually involving the acquisition of property from a failed venture (whether that's repossessing a car or creditors selling off the remains of a bankrupt company). However, everything about this article's history and current status says bad faith to me, and I really don't see how it could benefit from anything other than a complete rewrite. In that case, I feel it's better to just delete it and let someone else come by and remake it unless someone wants to volunteer here. --FreelanceWizard 03:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call all of the edit history in bad faith - the original version was actually quite decent (if you ignore the linkspam). - ulayiti (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The original version was, in my mind, clearly created as a basis for linkspam. AssetRecovery has two edits, both to that page. That aside, I'm now waffling between changing it into a redirect to a more general topic (bankruptcy and foreclosure both sound good to me) and merging the definition in somewhere, and deleting it outright. Smerdis of Tlön has a good point, IMHO; the current version of the page borders on a tautological dicdef. I could be swayed to a keep if the article were expanded, however. --FreelanceWizard 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete w/o prejudice: a valid subject, but — "Asset recovery is when you recover an asset." Smerdis of Tlön 05:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Trade while reading an article that doesn't warrant its own existance isn't a useful starting point. Dlyons493 Talk 08:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, a valid subject. The article used to be half-decent as well, until the nominator turned it into this, using edit summaries such as 'KILL THIS ARTICLE!' . I've now rewritten the article so that it's closer to the original. - ulayiti (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep a valid topic. Siva1979Talk to me 15:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment from nominator. So would an article on Car stereo installation be acceptable? What about Shower tile grout cleaning? Wouldn't those be more likely to redirect to, say, Car audio and Cleanliness or Stain, respectively? It seems like "Asset recovery" should redirect to either foreclosure or bankruptcy. I don't see how it is anything more than a Wiktionary entry, at least with the present (lack of) information in the article. Please comment! CrypticBacon 18:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is a dictionary definition. (Unsigned comment by BrianGCrawfordMA 14:46, 17 February 2006)
  • Keep. Useful start with potential for expansion. Capitalistroadster 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded, it's a dicdef., and a bad dicdef at that. Stifle 11:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded. - Rudykog 10:24, 22 February 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.