Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New bankruptcy law

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. (Deleted by Golbez on June 19) – Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 09:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New bankruptcy law
This appears to a political diatribe of some sort. I can't see what would be appropriate in this place, so I recommend deletion. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Its the same user that created Soliciting Corporate Money, also on VFD and that keeps making anti-Tom DeLay edits. I suggest delete. Deus Ex 00:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it on the edit conflict, Deux Ex&mdash;I just found that VfD myself. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unencyclopedic. If I could understand the other half of it, I'd probably say POV as well. Double Blue  (Talk) 00:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I assume that the article refers to the legislation passed by Congress during this term which has a title and which would probably warrant an NPOV article. Needless to say, this isn't it. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rant. An article on the act in question would properly be exists, and is titled Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and a sentence or two of discussion of nefarious contributions could go somewhere in there. -- BD2412 talk 02:28, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Delete: Material on the changes (and how prejudicial they are, and even how they were ramrodded by a particular party that receives money from the financial industry, and even possibly how the bill was drafted by lobbyists) should go in the general Bankruptcy article.  No particular need to merge, as the truth is more incriminating than any rant. Geogre 02:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV rant. JamesBurns 07:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete We already have Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which, coincidentally, badly needs expansion. I think i'll add it to my list . . . - Jersyko  talk  14:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and move. I have no problem with an article about this act, but I do have a problem with this POV rant. Aecis 14:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Since the law at hand already has an article, I change my vote to salvage what can be salvaged and needs to be salvaged and then delete. Aecis 16:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. MysteryDog 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Or bankruptcy, I think it's a bit U.S.-centric to redirect as MysteryDog suggested. - Jersyko talk  16:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, a redirect of this title anywhere would be problematic, since it starts with the word "new" - so the redirect will instantly become suspect whenver a newer bankruptcy law was passed somewhere. Logically, that would justify throwing 'new' in front of any topic - new civil rights law, new abortion law, new tax law - and making that a redirect to the main article on that topic, which just strikes me as a bad idea all around. -- BD2412 talk 19:47, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Speedy abstain 216.186.53.4 16:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Article on the act exists; POV rant Jareth 18:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per BD2412. 67.101.113.10 21:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hopelessly POV. Pburka 00:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not only a rant, you also have to read until the last paragraph to find out to which country this law applies. VERY bad. -- AlexR 04:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .