Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish bankruptcy auction

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. Sandstein 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish bankruptcy auction[edit]

The article is entirely original research and, in any case, has no clear point. The phrase "Swedish bankruptcy auction" has been, at best, misinterpreted. It is not a concept that has ever been in use at any level, in academic circles or otherwise, outside of Wikipedia. The references provided in the article do not support the content (see the article's talk page). Note that, for context, a similar article is also currently nominated for AFD, Swedish auction. Debate 木 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase refers to any auction (using any mechanism) of company assets that is triggered by bankruptcy – and if it happens in Sweden. Seems like the originator simply uses it as a kind of shorthand; no assertion in the article (or anywhere else I can find) of another defining characteristic, therefor non-notable. 9Nak (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References do not support content (which in any case, does nothing to distinguish this as a type of bankruptcy auction). Obviously the rules and regulations of each jurisdiction will differ, but there is nothing unique about this or applicable in any other context. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Swedish bankruptcy auction is a legal term used in the USA only (as opposed to a firm being reorganized under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code). The actual auction is normally a First price auction and has nothing to do with a Swedish-type auction, Swedish auction or Multiple-round auction, which is not a legal term, but an auction procedure arrived at by Auction design. Please look att the references. Additional references can be provided if needed. Max7437 (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Debate 木 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references do not support the content, as previously discussed. Furthermore, I get zero hits from both a search of US and Canadian law journals at http://www.lexisnexis.com, and a general search of Academic Search Premier. (Both subscription only, unfortunately, but widely available in university libraries.) Debate 木 02:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The investigation of the user Debate has shown that Max7437:s claim that this is a legal term is incorrect. I also agree with the statement of Dhartung that this concept is non-notable. Ulner (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, particularly Debate and Dhartung. While google doesn't compare in usefulness to lexisnexis here, I find it instructive anyway that four of the five unique hits I got relate back to Wikipedia and this article's creator. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From skimming this Thorburn article, it looks as though what's distinguishing about Swedish bankruptcy auctions is not any particular feature of the auction itself, but that Swedish law (nearly) requires an auction to resolve corporate bankruptcy, unlike court-managed reorganization under U.S. Chapter 11. This might be interesting, but is not an article. Cretog8 (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2008 (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.