Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tools of trade


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Tools of trade

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks any citations, orphaned and likely fails WP:Notability. I have also some concerns that this article is simply a copy-paste job. With the text taken from another website. Theprussian (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't think it's copied from another website (rather, wikiscrapers have copied this article), but as it stands this article is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF. Perhaps it deserves a line or two in bankruptcy law but there's no reason at all for this to be a stand-alone article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  14:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. [now Neutral, see below.] The "tools of trade" bankruptcy exemption is real, but it's only one of many exemptions in the US bankruptcy act, and I would expect the same in the bankruptcy laws of other countries.


 * In the US it's in (f)(1)(B)(ii): "implements, professional books, or tools, of the trade of the debtor or the trade of a dependent of the debtor". The fact that it's buried as part of a sub-sub-sub-sub-section is perhaps indicative of how deep in the details this is.


 * A quick search shows the subject mentioned in a significant number of law journals, but I found only one article (Craig Kendall, Bankruptcy: Debtor's Tools of the Trade are Defined by the Use Test, 30 Washburn L.J. 127 (1990)) that specifically discussed it -- and that was only because the article is a summary of the not-particularly-notable case In re Heape, 886 F.2d 280 (10th Cir. 1989), where the term figured. The subject was not written about because "tools of trade" was itself worth discussing; but only because the definition of the term as an issue in the case being explained.
 * As May His Shadow Fall Upon You suggests, it may be worth including in Bankruptcy, but that's about it. TJRC (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - in addition to usage in Bankruptcy law (whihc is not just in the USA), the term is also used in taxation law for the purpose of assessing equipment used for carrying out their work to produce assessable income. It's more than a dictionary definition. Bookscale (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? To me, it just really feels like just banking terminology.Theprussian (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's used for one purpose in bankruptcy, and another way in tax, then they're two different concepts -- one a bankruptcy exemption and one a... assessment criterion? In which case they would be in two different articles, not shoehorned into one. The only reason to cover multiple uses in one article would be to provide multiple definitions... and you're basically arguing it's a WP:DICDEF. TJRC (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - tools of the trade are a concept used across many jobs and professions; for examples, construction workers buy their own wrenches and some teachers buy their own school supplies. Tool of the Trade is a SF book that is probably not notable. Not sure what we should do here. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEYMANN (and further expansion is possible) and the fact the topic satisfies GNG. The article is not a dictionary definition now. The exemption is not confined to bankruptcy as it applies, for example, to any High Court writ of execution and certain other powers of seizure in England. That said I think the article should possibly be moved and expanded to cover the related exemptions, especially the exemption for items needed for domestic purposes. James500 (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced it should be kept, but the changes made have made me less adamant, and I've revised my not-vote to "neutral" above.
 * I don't have access to the newly-cited sources, but from the titles, none of them sound like they are particularly about the subject matter of the article; they're about bankruptcy, and, as expected, "tools of the trade" will get some small treatment in any significant discussion of bankruptcy exceptions.
 * But now, although it probably still shouldn't be kept, it's mostly harmless, and its retention doesn't particularly bother me. (My internal metric for an article like this is more like PROD-level; if someone objects to its removal, as here, I won't push for it.) TJRC (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously notable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:50, 12 September 2019 (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.