Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Stock

Stock
Delete: --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Length: 500 words
 * Low-quality material: poorly written, with wholly scattered focus
 * Last two substantive edits:
 * 25 December 2008
 * 12 November 2006


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Is is a stub. It has some content, if there isn't no competing project were it can be merged or be substituted with, there is no reason for deletion. --Panic (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol merge vote.svg Merge This seems like something that should be merged into a larger book. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a possible target for the merge ? --Panic (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wish I did. Had I one in mind I would have taken care of it to avoid the dilemma of deletion. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

strikeout text:Delete Reads like a history of the American stock market.--ЗAНИA talk 14:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And that makes the content deletable ? At best you should propose a rename and a clearer scope... --Panic (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This reads just like a 'what is it' section of an encyclopedic article.--ЗAНИA talk 02:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point, I can comprehend that you don't particularly like the content and respect you opinion on that but do you truly think that the best outcome is a deletion?
 * As is your dissent doesn't contribute anything to the RFD. Since the RFD isn't structured to determine what constitutes "good" content (acceptable or promising will suffice) but only what should definitely be deleted from the project, and this doesn't fit that bill. If those are your only objections for the keep can you please think about it and possibly remove the support for the deletion.
 * Another point is that I don't agree with your claim that no one would see the content as valuable (I see above at least 2 votes to keep the content and we could count in the person that wrote it, that alone proves the argument as flawed).
 * I will accept you personal view on the issue and agree with you that it is "almost an encyclopedic article", that is probably why the merge option was advanced, but at present there seems not to be any better place for it, not even promoting a transwiki to Wikipedia seems a viable option. The facts is that someone has taken the time to write it and it is free content, in itself it should be considered as a stub, in 2 seconds one could create several book structures around that content. That is why we avoid deleting valuable stubs (good structure or worthy content). I'm all for deleting abandoned "empty" stubs.
 * Sorry if I came a bit strong but I have recently been examining the deletions topic and our policy and this type of inconsistency on what constitutes useful content seems to me an important issue, as I see it somewhat as a disregard to contributors that are inexperienced and/or don't have the time or opportunity to contribute long term to the project By disregarding small contributions that do fit with the project's scope and what we have came to determined as acceptable content we are in fact alienating users. --Panic (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote removed. I'll agree with Panic on grounds that my opinion about whether its useful is irrelevent and the idea is to encourage people to write books rather than delete them all the time especially as Wikibooks seems to have died a while ago and needs something to bring it back to life.  Still feel that it needs a significant re-write to make it less encyclopedic and more bookish.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest a merge to the Personal Finance book where the Assets sub page already links to it. I'm going to move it there anyway, it can always be deleted still if that's the consensus. QU TalkQu 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest a merge to the Personal Finance book where the Assets sub page already links to it. I'm going to move it there anyway, it can always be deleted still if that's the consensus. QU TalkQu 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)