Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter 7 Trustee


 * 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   speedy delete. It first appeared that just one section was copied and pasted, but much of the rest seems to have been as well, only it's bee tidied up (but not enough to remove copyright concerns). Since there doesn't seem to be anything salvageable, there seems no choice but to speedy. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Chapter 7 Trustee

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication that Chapter 7 Trustees are WP:N. Even if they are, this article is in such terrible shape that it would need to be rewritten from scratch. Smells strongly of a copyvio. &mdash;SW&mdash; spout 23:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code, at worst. (I don't rule out the possibility that this article could be improved sufficiently to justify being kept.) I don't know if this page was copied from somewhere (I haven't found the source yet, if so), but even if it was, it's possible that the source might be a work of the U.S. government and thus in the public domain. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Metropolitan90. Potentially a highly notable topic (or at least worthy of substantial coverage in some article about US bankruptcy law) but the current article doesn't cut it.  Most of the text appears to be have been copied from the FAQ page of the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees ; this source is cited (repeatedly) in the article, but it's still a copyvio. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rescue. AfD is not for rescue.  They perform an important US government function. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that "rescue" in this particular case means "start over from scratch"? If so, then how is that different from deleting the article without prejudice for recreation (especially considering that it will wipe out the history which is likely full of copyvios)?  Why do you feel the need to turn this into a battle?  &mdash;SW&mdash; comment 21:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, nevermind. Just saw Arxiloxos' comment above.  The whole thing is a copyvio.  Tagging for speedy G12.  &mdash;SW&mdash; babble 21:34, 13 September 2011 (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.