Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not for loss

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not for loss

Not for loss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Possible non-notable neologism Ra2007 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The sources aren't even in agreement that this exists or what it means. In any case there is no legal definition and a "not-for-loss" firm could abandon that principle at any time. --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung and nom, and as violating WP:COAT, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NEO. I've contributed to hundreds of legal articles here at WP, and practiced law for 15 years, and have never heard of the term. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if this were an established term, one would expect that there would be papers published about this model of business. A google scholar search turns up only one possible source that might be about this concept, and even then it might not be about what this article is explaining. Unable to find anything else, so thus delete. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2007 (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.