Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic bankruptcy

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic bankruptcy

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

The idea that Kmart was an otherwise sound company except for its leases at the time of declaring bankruptcy is ridiculous. Even if Kmart was profitable, which it wasnt, for the purposes of financial analysis an underwater lease constitutes a true liability (technically called Capital Lease Obligations and recorded in liabilities on the balance sheet), so it CAN in fact make a company truly insolvent.

Ok, to be fair there is a book published about the topic, and it is cited here. But consider some of the reviews this book got on Amazon:

Clearly, it's not a "scientific", neutral book, but a political one...
The author should have stuck with sociology or at least taken an accounting class before writing this book. Overall, the book is what you would expect from a sociologist writing about business.
The book reads like a freshman term paper written in short order.

I am nominating this article for deletion. Kotika98 (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was not started correctly, I have added it to today's log. -- Patchy1 23:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obvious keep Besides the cited book (controversial or not) I found a good number of references to the concept in the literature. The current article is plain in its deficiencies but it's clear we should have an article on this subject. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue of whether the Kmart bankruptcy event is a suitable example of a strategic bankruptcy (SB) is best discussed on the article's talk page, as it is a content issue, not a deletion issue. Calling into question the Delaney book as a reliable source is more serious. Let us assume that it is unreliable. Then is the topic still notable? Sources I found are

SBdiscussed in a section of the book Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, Volume 1
SB discussed in book Bankruptcy Litigation and Practice
pages 100-103 of Journal of Business Strategies, Volumes 11-15
Orr, Douglas V. "Strategic bankruptcy and private pension default." Journal of Economic Issues (1998): 669-687.
Rose–Green, Ena, and Mark Dawkins. "Strategic bankruptcies and price reactions to bankruptcy filings." Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 29.9‐10 (2002): 1319-1335.
Daily, Catherine M. "Bankruptcy in strategic studies: Past and promise." Journal of Management 20.2 (1994): 263-295.
Moulton, Wilbur N., and Howard Thomas. "Bankruptcy as a deliberate strategy: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence." Strategic Management Journal 14.2 (1993): 125-135.

These all seem to be peer-reviewed reliable secondary sources discussing SB going back at least two decades. The topic thus seems notable and the article should be kept. Keeping the article doesn't preclude improving it, however. Mark viking (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails to offer valid reasons for deletion (arguably suitable for WP:SPEEDYKEEP but I'll let that pass). Books on Amazon get all kinds of reviews for all kinds of reasons, so it's ridiculous to delete a topic just because one of the books on the topic gets a bad review. And your opinions on KMart's finances while interesting don't relate to the notability of the topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant idea in economics. If the article needs to be improved, fix it. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:33, 29 January 2013 (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.