Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estate liquidation

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estate liquidation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. I found an academic journal article about the topic. I found a book about the topic. I found a newspaper article about the topic. This article in the Washington Post says that "The field of professionals in estate liquidation includes appraisers and evaluators of various types of belongings; estate sale specialists; auction houses; cleanout companies that sort, pack, transport, distribute and discard; and charitable organizations that accept property donations." When a topic is notable but the article about it is poorly referenced, the solution is to improve the article rather than to delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is not only notable but will grow in notability as time goes on due to the aging population in the Western World. In addition as per User: Cullen there is an academic journal article about the topic. In addition, User: Cullen found an entire book about the topic. User: Cullen also found a newspaper article about the topic. What really convinced me though that the article is a keeper is User: Cullen mentioning The article in the Washington Post indicating that "The field of professionals in estate liquidation includes appraisers and evaluators of various types of belongings; estate sale specialists; auction houses; cleanout companies that sort, pack, transport, distribute and discard; and charitable organizations that accept property donations." So it is a distinct field worthy of an article of its own. And I wholeheartedly agree with User: Cullen that improvement of articles should be looked at first before deleting the article. The lifeblood of Wikipedia is editors and if people see their work vaped arbitrarily, they are going to stop being Wikipedians.Knox490 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - literally whole libraries of books, for both attorneys and laypersons, have been written about the topic. See WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting the topic isnt notable, but the article is entirely unreferenced. If there are lots of books, presumably there are disagreements about issues. How can we assess what is stated in the article? Rathfelder (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some relevant policies that apply WP:BEFORE WP:ATD WP:NOTCLEANUP The fact that it is unreferenced is not cause for deletion per WP:NEXIST Wm335td (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every time we edit an article we are told "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". The policy you quote says "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. (If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to delete.)" This article appears to have been unreferenced for 11 years. There are a surprising number of articles about property law in the same position. Rathfelder (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder:Seems the above ivoters disagree with your position. But I agree someone should undertake the referencing. However that is not grounds for deletion per WP:NEXIST Wm335td (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started adding refs to the intro. Wm335td (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Happy to withdraw my nomination now. Rathfelder (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SKCRIT#1 Wm335td (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.