Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workout delayed reimbursement of advances


 * 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. Although Google is from infallible, a grand total of 3 Ghits, of which 2 are Wikipedia, is hardly indiciative of notability. During the course of this AfD, there appears to have been a fair bit of arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, but no addition of sources to prove the notability of the term or the concept. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Workout delayed reimbursement of advances

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

per WP:NOT article has almost no sources and the term is only referred to in a single report. βcommand 22:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is not lexical at all and so the DICDEF argument is not supported by the relevant policy. The topic is a technical aspect of commercial mortgage-backed security and is covered in multiple sources.  At worst, we would merge into some larger article about such mortgage dealings.  Per our editing policy, deletion is not at all appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * additional comment for further deletion, I googled] the article title and got a total of three hits. One and Two being wp's article and the redirect to it. the third is one of the two sources listed in the article. βcommand 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term / concept is not notable. It is not in most financial dictionaries / acronym lists. There are vanishingly few web its for it, no Google News archive hits for it, and no Google Books hits for it. Neither that it is mentioned in one technical article, nor that it is a term in possibly a huge number of actual mortgage loans demonstrates its notability. Bongo  matic  05:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GOOGLE, such searches are not an infallible guide. The topic is an aspect of mortgage workout which is a more common and general term but which is still a red link.  We do not assist readers of this complex area by knocking out search links as they arise.  By merging to an article such as predatory mortgage servicing, we will improve our coverage in accordance with our editing policy.  Editing in a purely negative, predatory way is not our policy.  Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they're not infallible. However, the way to demonstrate that they're wrong isn't to say that they're not always right&mdash;it's to demonstrate that something that doesn't show up with the standard searches is given significant coverage despite that. The suggestion that a concept / practice of this vintage isn't representatively covered in sources indexed by search engines is odd. In fact, for recent phenomena, Google is likely to overstate, rather than understate, the coverage. Bongo  matic  23:54, 27 May 2010 (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.