Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of indebtedness


 * 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. notability derives from sources not assertions so no sources = non-notable Spartaz Humbug! 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of indebtedness

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Rather than being a general, top-level article about its purported topic, evidence of indebtedness, this article is a personal analysis of a particular problem related to evidence of indebtedness in the United States. WP:No original research. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs a comprehensive rewrite. The article itself is currently written terribly, but I think the topic is notable and warrants an article.  We just need to find someone else to write the article. Snottywong (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have it backwards. There are a billion articles that would be worthy of articles. They shouldn't be created until someone has a valid one to write, at least a workable stub. The text that's here needs to be deleted, and that would leave an empty article. There is no merit to keeping an article before someone has valid content to provide for it. Of course, you or someone else are welcome to provide such content, but this nomination is based on the current circumstances. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see "bad editing" as a reason for deletion in WP:DEL. As a matter of fact, WP policy specifically states that a poorly edited article should be fixed by better editing, not deletion.  See WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT, and the second bullet-point under WP:BEFORE. Snottywong (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My reason for nominating this article has nothing to do with bad editing, the article being a stub, or its imperfection. It's about the article not being about what the article claims, by its title, to be about, although it does relate to it. If there weren't already an article with the title Bird and someone created one, but the text focused on problems faced by pet bird owners, it wouldn't be an editing problem, and it wouldn't be a stub. It would be an article that shouldn't be left indefinitely until someone happened to come along and replace the text with a real article about birds. It would be an article that ought to be deleted until someone decided to write a genuine article about birds. Here's the deal: the point of having an article is to allow people to be able to refer to it. If we have articles sitting around for readers to find, only to disappoint them when it turns out they aren't about what the title claims, it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia, even allowing for imperfection, works in progress, etc. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - The article does not contain any references whatsoever and the writing is obscure and hard to understand. The subject is of notable standards, I would agree, but it is not practical to keep it in its current state which is likely to remain unedited or unimproved. It makes more sense to delete this one and if someone still sees the importance of the subject than it can be recreated more appropriately. - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This does want a rewrite.  It doesn't explain how "evidence of indebtedness" relates to labor law, or explain the significance of the term among promissory notes and other credit instruments.  But the subject is worthwhile, and the text here not completely valueless.  If I get a chance, I may have a go at this later. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article has no references Cynof  G  avuf 08:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article needs work, but the topic is important. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the topic being important was sufficient for keeping an article, we wouldn't have WP:CSD A3, and instead of WP:Articles for creation we would just recommend that people create empty articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:14, 2 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.