Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private Retirement Plan


 * 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 and redirect to Private pension.  So Why  12:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Private Retirement Plan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A copy of a section from the California Code of Civil Procedure isn't an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTMIRROR. Largoplazo (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Private Retirement Plan is California Civil Code of Procedure 704.115. This is CA state law and the page states the fact of what the law says. If it didn't cite it correctly or something please let me know but as far as I am concerned there is no difference between this and the wiki page on the IRA, Roth IRA, or any other law that has a wikipage dedicated to it. Mark Seither (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Both Individual retirement account and Roth IRA are encyclopedia articles about those respective subjects that include none of the text of the legislation behind those two topics, rather than being barely prefaced copy-pastes from a legal book.
 * Also, their titles are commensurate with what they are about. Titling an article "Private Retirement Plan" when its scope is limited to civil procedure in a single state of the United States with respect to private retirement plans is, I'm afraid, similar to titling an article Primary school when its coverage is limited to the legal standard for licensing public primary school teachers in a single canton in Switzerland. Largoplazo (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if the title were changed to "Civil procedure pertaining to private retirement plans in California", I'm not sure that the topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion. It seems unlikely to me that they have received attention from anyone outside of the set of California attorneys who have engaged in lawsuits where payouts from someone's private retirement plan come into play—in contrast to the way that the Roth IRA has received widespread attention, for example. Largoplazo (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent info, I'll look into some of these aspect of the page and see if I can change it. As far as it being titled "Private Retirement Plan", the law actually titles it a private retirement plan, that is not a generic term. If you were to look up case studies on private retirement plans you would find a bunch referring to the Private Retirement Plan followed by the code supporting it. If I were to title it by its civil code and then just referenced the Private Retirement Plan in the body, would that suffice?
 * i also beg to differ about the notability guidelines based on the fact there are other california law specific pages, there is a page about the california code of civil procedure, there are tons of case studies involving the law not just involving CA residents (the sue-ee has a PRP but the sue-er can be from anywhere), and ERISA was actually drafted from the CA CCP 704.115. Should be signifucant enough to have a wiki page, i'll see if i can find anything on encyclopedia and use that instead of taking it directly from its public record. any other thoughts? Comments? Advice? Mark Seither (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly, within the context of the civil procedure code, Section 704.115 is the section that deals with private retirement plans. It isn't claiming to be defining private retirement plans for the entire world. I can't even tell where you're seeing this as a title, because the version here has no such title, but, even so, (1) legal codes often name sections or articles, or whatever subdivision, like this to help guide users in the context of the specific code, and (2) it's like creating an article called "Household furnishings" on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of discussing section 704.020 of the CCP. Context is important!
 * I'd expect that every section of every jurisdiction's rules of civil procedure gets used in appropriate situations, but I wouldn't expect that most of those individual sections would meet WP:N.
 * I don't know where you got that idea about ERISA because almost nothing in ERISA, even as amended, has anything to do with court-ordered awards from retirement plans to people other than the retiree (or the retiree's beneficiary), and ERISA was passed in 1974, while this detail page from the CCP says that Article 3, which contains Section 704, was added in 1982. (Did I mention that I was in the pension field for 15 years, dealing with ERISA the entire time? Over a range of years that included 1982.) Largoplazo (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * the PRP was last amended last in 1982 but was originally introduced to CCP in 1970. Thank you for citing the CCP code that included 704.115, if you're looking for where it titles it a private retirement plan, look 5 words beyond the letter (a) after 704.115, it says "private retirement plan means" and then goes on to define it. The Private Retirement Plan was around while you were working in the field of pensions but there would have been no cross over since people with a pension have little need to worry about retirement assets and exemption planning. I completely understand why you have not heard of or know the origin of private retirement plans. If this more of an issue with there not being enough people to which the PRP is relevant then I understand that. Mark Seither (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You continue to talk about "Private Retirement Plan" as though that term means "section 704.115 of the CCP". All that section is doing is defining what this code means by that term when it uses it. That's what legal codes do: they define their terms before they use them. They are often terms that are in general use, but often with varying and imprecise meanings, so the code using the term "defines" them to declare what it specifically means when it uses them.
 * There isn't even any the Private Retirement Plan—you keep referring to it in the singular. There are millions of private retirement plans. As for their origin, they go back to the 19th century. The earliest one in the U.S. was established by American Express in 1875. (I'm not sure why I even have to explain this. Paragraph (a) itself says that it's explaining what it means by "private retirement plan", and is not calling itself "the" Private Retirement Plan.) Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe to define it a little further I will refer to it as the Private Retirement Plan Exemption since it is more important to know the exemption allowed when setting up and administrating your own Private Retirement Plan as defined under CCP. Clearly it is not the literal "private retirement plan" as thought of if you were to take the 3 words separately and put them together. Anyone with half a brain stem would know that those have been around longer than the 1970. I have been to many seminars on this topic from some of the best minds in estate planning and have spoken to some of the most knowledgeable experts in this field (even more qualified than 15 years in the pension field!), in such an unfriendly state, the CA Private Retirement Plan Exemption is absolutely fascinating! I can send you more info if you'd like to read up on the difference and the legitimacy of what I am talking about. I am going to take C.Fred's recommendation and move it to wikisource and deal with it there. If you are a CA resident then feel free to check out your exemptions allowed when setting up a CA defined Private Retirement Plan! Best! Mark Seither (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of demonstrated coverage of the PRP in independent reliable sources. Just restating the law doesn't count as coverage. Further, the bulk of the article is the law; depending on the copyright status of California laws, this either needs deleted as a copyright infringement or moved to Wikisource. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * there is no copyright issue with citing the California law, I am interestead in what wikisource is and seeing if it makes sense to go that route. I am new to creating Wikipages so I am still trying to understand all the different types of pages. If it is better suited for wikisource, is that easy to switch to or would I need to creat a whole new page?Mark Seither (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no copyright issue with citing law as a reference; there can be with reprinting it, depending on the state. Georgia deems the OCGA to be a copyrighted work. If the text should be transfered to Wikisource, there are users who can assist with the transfer. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See here, with attention to paragraph (g), but then also here, and make of them what you will. Largoplazo (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Disagreement over sources.
 * Delete a clear case of WP:NOT. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * speedy delete as obvious COPYVIO. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to private pension as a plausible search term. No problem with creating an encyclopaedia article about this subject but it should be called Private Retirement Plan (California) and, yanno, be an encyclopaedia article.— S Marshall  T/C 19:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't about private retirement plans in California. It's about the rules of civil procedure applicable to private retirement plans in California. Or the specifics about what the California rules of civil procedure mean when they use the term "private retirement plan". Largoplazo (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. And that's why the current article should be turned into a redirect to private pension: the text is of no value to an encyclopaedia.  I have no problem with someone creating an encyclopaedia article about private retirement plans in California but this is not a useful starting point.— S Marshall  T/C 20:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect - S Marshall is on the mark, I think. Redirect to the most plausible target and give this unencyclopedic bit the TNT treatment, with no prejudice against recreation of a real piece on the California law if it is written. Carrite (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see a value in redirecting the name of a state-specific retirement plan to an article that does not discuss it. Redirect would be better than Keep, but Delete is preferred. TJRC (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect per . Wikipedia is not a repository for reproductions of statutes, although Wikisource may be interested.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:01, 20 August 2017 (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.