Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR)


 * 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  20:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

2011 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This series of year specific articles are each nothing more than the title and an external link. Search for an appropriate article to redirect to came up empty. 2009 Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (SCAP) doesn't seem appropriate as it appears to be different enough from these that a redirect could create confusion. UK articles on a similar topic are not appropriate either. Redirecting to that parent article, Bank stress tests doesn't seem like the right step either since this isn't a likely search term and that article is more of a disambiguation page anyway RadioFan (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the reason listed above:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposed Bank stress tests has been reviewed by User:BD2412 an admin ranked 13 on List of Wikipedians by number of edits. It was determined NOT to be a disambiguation page but instead a stub class Broad-Concept Article. I orginally converted Bank stress tests from an odd redirect to a disamb. However, after learning more about disambig mechanics, I wholly agree with User:BD2412 that its best off as a stub class Broad-Concept Article. Its highly likely to expand over time. see Talk:Bank stress tests. 2012 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR) is a stub class article describing the 2012 stress testing conducted in the United States. It has a citation to the original sources.  2013  Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR) is also a stub class article describing the current, ongoing stress tests conducted in the United States. It also has a citation to original sources. The results of this year's testing are not even yet reported, yet the program specifications have been fully published and massive amounts of work are currently underway. It will be internationally covered business news when the test results are reported. The stub serves as a pre-established landing spot.  Its likely that the U.K. and Asian regulators also subjected their banks to stress tests in the post Financial crisis of 2007–2008 period which should also deserve dedicated Wikipedia coverage. Rick (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment worth noting that Bank stress tests is not under discussion for deletion here, just the 3 yearly Comprehensive Capital Assesment Review articles. Each repeats the article title and has an external link.  Not even really a stub.  Pretty clear case of WP:TOSOON RadioFan (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge all back into Bank stress test. bd2412  T 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved from "Bank stress tests" to List of bank stress tests. Not an article, just a list. With that accomplished the three "thin stubs" can be removed as that seems to be intensely desired. Rick (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * comment a list article would be needed only if we had a complete article on the topic itself. Seems to me that this list should be moved back to Bank stress tests where the list can live as well.  No need for two articles here.--RadioFan (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * response there are not two articles. Bank stress test (note it was made just singular) is just a simple redirect. If someone wants to write a general article about bank stress test, including the techniques commonly employed, what individual banks do internally, that redirect can be removed and they can write a full article. The second page is a brief list page, a listing of major bank stress tests by year and country/region. The thin stub pages links were added to the List of bank stress test pages and wiki-links removed. I believe they are now orphaned so they can be removed. Rick (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * comment I see the list article has been moved back to bank stress tests by an admin.  --RadioFan (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is currently a proposal at Talk:Bank stress test, which I strongly support, under which the current morass would be resolved by moving Stress test to Stress test (disambiguation), then moving Stress testing to Stress test as the primary topic of the term, and breaking out sub-articles on Stress test (physical), Stress test (financial), and Stress test (software). The material now at Bank stress test will then be merged into Stress test (financial), after which I see no reason to have any list separate from the article itself, since neither will be overly long. bd2412  T 17:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I support the above proposal with the addition that the articles that are the subject of this AFD be deleted. RadioFan (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Since the stubs have no value whatsoever other than a link, and the proposed disambiguation and moves seem perfectly rational to me. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete 2011 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR) Rick (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete 2012 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR) Rick (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2013 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR) Reason: the 2013 tests are in process and will be reported in March. If anyone wants to flesh out a full article on that its good to have the sub page there ready for it. If that doesn't happen in 6 mo to a year, can delete this stub at that time. Rick (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If there was a strong pattern of articles for previous years along with editors eagerly maintaining them, I'd tend to agree with retaining the 2013 article. But there isn't such a pattern and there aren't editors who have demonstrated interest in maintaining these articles.  That being said, there is no reason these articles couldn't be created should that interest materialize.--RadioFan (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment One reason for retaining 2013, at least for a reasonable period after the the release of results in March 2013, is the tendency of people to write such an article without using the year. e.g. Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR). Plus the stub article serves as a royal invitation to contribute. Getting solid financial contributors has been a challenge (even on major topics). Finance people tend to "let the other guy do it". I'm not fully aware of all the apparent effort there must be in maintaining stub level articles, or if there is a difficult procedure resurrecting a deleted page a couple of months later. If its a pain to maintain admin wise and breeze to resurrect then delete.Rick (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing to these stubs. If we want to mention them at List of bank stress tests, that's fine, but I wouldn't call it a merge. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete completely pointless articles. Nothing to merge either as they are already included in List of bank stress tests.--Staberinde (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2013 (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.