Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Composition of creditors


 * 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 per Phil Bridger. Although both phrases are in use, "Composition with creditors" seems much more common, and I shall move the article to that title, leaving the other as a redirect. JohnCD (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Composition of creditors

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this. It also reads like a dictionary definition. Joe Chill (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to insolvency. I agree that there is no significant coverage and it reads like a dictionary definition, which means it fails WP:N and WP:DICDEF; thus, it should not have its own article.  However, it is verifiable that the phrase is used with a specific meaning, which makes it a plausible search term.  I would say "redirect", except that our present coverage of insolvency does not cover the idea of a composition with creditors and it should. As an aside, I want to point out that it is very common in legal agreements and mortgages in the UK that a party must declare that it "has not within the past five years been bankrupt or entered into a composition with creditors", or similar language.  Financially independent adults in Britain will certainly have encountered the term.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or send to Wikionary.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is certainly an encyclopedic topic, with the scope for the article to have information on how this concept is addressed in various legal jurisdictions, as can been seen from just a cursory scan of the Google Books search linked above. It may well be that this would better be covered in another article, but that's a decision that should be made as part of the standard editing process rather than a matter for AfD. Whatever decision is made this should at the very least remain as a redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Phil Bridger's analysis is on target. The fact that the first version of an article begins by reading like a dicdef is simply not evidence that the article can't be meaningfully expnded, and the nominator's claim of being unable to find coverage is contradicted by the immense number of Google search hits. Legal concepts that ubiquitous merit articles explaining the subject to laypeople. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the Google hits show notability for this to have its own article. I didn't think of merging until it was brought up here. What I said wasn't contradicted because I couldn't per my opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Certainly a familiar _term_ in UK insolvency law, but I'm not completely convinced that it's worth its own article. We already have CVA, and I doubt that there's any other form of composition that's regularly used these days.  However, the article might have potential for expansion.  Tevildo (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2009 (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.