Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate recovery


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Corporate recovery
This article has been transwikied to Wiktionary. (corporate recovery) James084 05:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|30px]] 06:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Ter e nce Ong 06:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, no self-respecting encylopedia of business would not attempt to explain this activity. Kappa 06:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a bloated dicdef. See also Asset recovery, while you're at it. --CrypticBacon 08:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Business and finance are some of the weakest areas of coverage here. The success or failure of corporate recoveries, the ensuing layoffs and restructuring, impact millions of workers, their families and communities every year. This is not a topic that should be hidden away in a one or two line definition. It is a topic that should be explained in depth with a discussion of the techniques used, examples of success and failures, and references. I say give this the time needed to develop.-- JJay 09:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll change my vote if this is expanded into a modest encyclopedia article before close. Better yet if there are some reliable sources cited. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think google might help you find sources. If not, try google books.-- JJay 13:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Major topic area. Why are some people willing to harm the development of Wikipedia by deleting important stubs? It looks a lot worse for Wikipedia to have no article at all. Osomec 13:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. A good encyclopedia article could be written about this. Capitalistroadster 22:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Insolvency. Ewlyahoocom 11:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs expanding. -- infinity 0 16:57, 9 March 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.