Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community property in the United States


 * 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 keep. Editors seem to agree that was is needed is cleanup, not deletion, and are further reminded that there is no deadline. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Community property in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

On 26 January 2019‎, User:Park3r improperly copied most of the contents of Community property into this new article and then rewrote the article on community property into an incomplete mess that consists almost entirely of unsourced original research in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. As I have pointed out at length on the talk page at Talk:Community property (scroll to the very end), User:Park3r seems to have conflated entirely unrelated concepts from different marital property regimes and the result is an incoherent disaster which no one has the time, interest, or energy to clean up. I propose to delete the article on Community property in the United States, then revert Community property back to its last good version on 15 January 2019. Coolcaesar (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or cleanup and merge The community property article was US-centric and full of original research prior to me splitting it out into a separate article: . Most of my edits to Community Property involved marking sections as unsourced, and tags inviting other users to add citations and fix the article, as well as splitting the US-specific wall of text into a separate article. One wonders why 18 months later, after no improvements to the original article (which could have included a re-merger of the articles, after cleaning up) there's instead an AFD. As for "improper" editing, WP:OWN would indicate that no one owns any article, and can edit it. Park3r (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your response is completely unresponsive to the AFD nomination above as well as the discussion on the article talk page. As I've repeatedly pointed out (go read the article talk page), you're confusing entirely unrelated concepts that have no business being mentioned in the same article.  I repeatedly prodded you to clean up the article but you failed to do so.  As I noted there, I looked at several major legal databases and couldn't find a single source for the silly notion that community property in the United States has anything to do with community of property in South Africa.  You certainly haven't provided any. So you're using Wikipedia as a publisher of unverified original research (which appears to be pure fantasy on your part) in direct violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. The next best option is to go back to the last good version.
 * Also, it is never enough on Wikipedia to argue that someone else can fix the mess you left behind, so let's leave it. No. It's your problem to fix it.  The fact you are too lazy to clean up your own mess after 18 months speaks for itself.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)~
 * I am not an expert in the comparative law of matrimonial property regimes so I haven't been able to expand on the article. Furthermore, the current Community Property page is not nearly as bad as you make out: it's a reasonable stub. However, the former article (which became Community property in the United States) was a forbidding wall of text with lots of WP:OR. Furthermore, we have not interacted for at least 9 months, so "repeated prodding" seems to inarticulately characterise things. Community [of] property as a matrimonial property regime is a worldwide concept, not US-centric. If you are attached to the title for "your" article, you can move "Community Property in the United States" back to Community Property, and we can create another article for the worldwide view. That said, I have no particularly strong feelings about this topic, feel free to be WP:BOLD, and do whatever you feel works, as long as the international view of the topic is not removed (or is moved to a separate article).Park3r (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the crux of the dispute. "Community [of] property as a matrimonial property regime is a worldwide concept, not US-centric." Your reference to a "worldview view" is nonsense.  Your attempt to treat "community of property" as equivalent to "community property" is original research on your part for which you have not cited any sources. That equivalence exists nowhere but your imagination. Stop vandalizing Wikipedia and go try creative writing. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP I find that this is an easily definable legal term. In my opinion this is not WP:OR. Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're confusing apples and oranges. User:Park3r is advancing a thesis with no support whatsoever that community property in the United States is somehow related to community of property in South Africa.  The more likely scenario is that these are two unrelated concepts with superficially similar names. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP Clearly notable subject. Central to marriage legislation, divorce litigation, prenuptial agreements, including issues of jurisdiction and choice of laws, states' rights.  Related to the concept of Equitable distribution.  Should be improved, but deletion is entirely out of order.  See WP:Before, which puts the burden on the AFD nominator, and those seeking deletion to demonstrate this is  proper resolution.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no one is going to improve it. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the number of people in the entire world with sufficient experience and interest in comparative family law is probably less than 200, and all of them are too busy trying to get tenure or pad their CVs to work on Wikipedia.  Although comparative law is one of my hobbies, I have zero interest in comparative family law.
 * For example, it took me over 9 years to develop sufficient understanding of comparative tort law in my spare time and then find the right sources for my recent comprehensive revision of the article on product liability. And that's an area of law that I'm actually interested in because I worked on a landmark product liability case. The better path is to pull back Community property to the last good version that makes sense and get rid of this one.
 * From my perspective, it looks like you are defending User:Park3r's right to vandalize the encyclopedia in plain sight and get away with it. It is that kind of perspective that is driving editors away from Wikipedia and explains why no one has made any major revisions to the article on community property in 18 months. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your perspective. Your vandalism claim is something I don't agree with.
 * Meanwhile, I plugged in some text and a citation, which I think adds perspective to the article. We should research this more via Google scholar, which is linked above (and which you were supposed to look at before you brought the AFD).
 * That being said, your ad hominem argument is no reason to delete an article that is on an important subject, that meets WP:GNG, an which can otherwise be improved. Who made the edits has nothing to do with this inquiry.  Indeed, you don't assert that you did anything required by WP:Before.  That is not meant as a personal attack.  But it is a criticism of your approach to AFD.  We will have to agree to disagree, and let other editors decide the merits of the claims.  Keep your mask on and your head down.  Safe journeys.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a huge topic in law and how it effects everyday people, not an obscure topic for legal scholarship. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a very important topic, and what the article needs is cleanup and improvement, because it is clearly notable. As for Park3r, I think that he should remove parts deemed original research, and rewrite them. As for the claim that he is vandalizing, I personally disagree and think that this is more of a content problem than anything. I encourage everyone to stay calm and AGF as well. Eternal Shadow   Talk  16:20, 1 July 2020 (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.