Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic consequences of the 2006 Thai coup d'état


 * 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. John254 00:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Economic consequences of the 2006 Thai coup d'état
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The page breaches WP:UNDUE. It's true that the coup had some economic consequences: these are amply detailed here. This article goes far beyond that, and needlessly so. Example: "The SET Index dropped 9.99, or 1.4 percent, to 692.57 at the 4:30 p.m. close in Bangkok. The SET Index fell 29.64 points, or 4.2 % to 702.63 in the first minutes of trading Thursday to its lowest intraday level since July 21. But quickly bounced back, suggesting the coup would do no greater damage." It also sounds like a financial report rather than an encyclopedia article: "'The initial reaction was kind of a knee-jerk reaction,' said Adithep Vanabriksha, who helps manage $1.6 billion at Aberdeen Asset Management Co. in Bangkok. 'Coups aren't viewed positively in the first instance, at least. Still, we wouldn't recommend investors sell. Valuations are still quite cheap.'" And it also crystalballs (but hasn't been updated since 2006): "Investors said the coup is unlikely to trigger another financial crisis in the region. 'The situation is very different than it was in 1997 and 1998, when you had large current account deficits in the region and large vulnerability because of borrowing,' said Michael Mussa, the IMF's research director in 1997 and 1998 who is now an economist at the Institute for International Economics in Washington. 'It is a purely domestic political event and when the smoke clears, it may be a good time to buy,' said Kevin Hebner, global investment strategist at Greenwich, Connecticut-based Third Wave Global Investors LLC, which manages over $400 million." Biruitorul (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Detailed subarticles are a usual feature, and not subject to UNDUE in any imaginable fashion. Undue, in fact, dictates we do exactly what we've done here - move overly detailed stuff to subarticles.  Wikipedia functions both as a general encyclopaedia and a specialist encyclopaedia, and has no space constraints, so there's no need to delete useful information which has already been covered in reliable secondary sources. Wily D  17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To a point, yes. But given the article itself (written in the immediate aftermath of the coup) acknowledges these consequences were "relatively minor", and given the main coup article pays a fair amount of attention to the economic angle, must we keep this level of detail? Especially, I may add, rather poorly-formatted detail (lots of quotes and predictions) that have little lasting relevance. Biruitorul (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Must? Are the harddisks running out of space? - although "other things" is a weak argument,  most of our articles are far less important and influential than a Military Coup - that's not a good standard of comparison. Wily D  18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, WP:NOT is not an excuse for preserving rubbish. I appreciate that we have less space constraints, but do see WP:EVERYTHING. Second, about a dozen Thai coups of the 20th century lack articles, so clearly we don't care that much about them. Third, the coup itself is absolutely notable - no one says we should delete that article. And its economic consequences are notable enough to merit a few paragraphs - which we give them there. What is not notable, certainly, at least, in the current form, is the content of this article - largely a pastiche of quotes from experts, mixed with some stock and currency numbers and plastered with a couple of graphs. We can safely do without this. Biruitorul (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is poorly written, but the information content is solid. So "rubbish" is simply not applicable as an adjective.  The correct response to good information that's poorly formatted is to reformat it, not delete it.  That coverage of political events in Thailand is poor is not a reason to delete coverage of political events in Thailand, but to write more about them.
 * Beyond this, there's nothing like "paragraph entitlement" based on notability. Paragraph entitlement is done article by article with undue - so George Washington should receive no mention in Universe, some mention in United States, a good deal of discussion in American Revolution and by the focus of every paragraph in George Washington.  There's absolutely no reason not to go into the available depth at a specific, tailored article, with one or two paragraphs and a  template on 2006 Thai coup d'etat. The ability to do this is what makes Wikipedia better than my New American Desktop Encyclopedia.
 * In short, this meets the usual inclusion criteria (probably WP:N) and runs afoul of nothing. It's merely poorly written - poorly written is not a deletion criterion - if it was, I'd have already worn the label off my delete button. Wily D  20:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is, of course, another argument: that the article has sat there almost unchanged for over a year and a half, in rather poor condition. If someone came and made a decent attempt at cleanup or restructuring, maybe there would be a persuasive case for keeping this. But while there is no deadline, this does seem to be going nowhere.
 * Now, to address your point. I don't see the information content as solid at all. It reads like a news report, not an encyclopedia article, and I'm curious how it could be made more like the latter. Moreover, there are two good reasons not to delve further than the main article. First, as the lead here admits, a "relatively minor" phenomenon is being discussed - stock market fluctuations over a couple of days. Second, the encyclopedic content, that which is of interest to the general reader as opposed to the economic historian, is already well encapsulated in the main article. If a persuasive case can be made that something in conformity with the MOS can be written on this topic, then there might be a case to keep it. However, that hasn't happened - it doesn't appear a convincing rationale for preserving the article has been made. Biruitorul Talk 21:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The lead SAYS that the coup was in part aimed at changing the country's economic policy. This is a valid subarticle. The article includes sourced speculation from an IMF economist -- I don't know how much more authoritative speculation can be. I don't know that we need to include the "good time to buy", but WP:SOFIXIT instead of focusing on one problem area to take down an entire article. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see that - I see an assertion that the coup had a long-term economic impact, but it's not backed up. Indeed it's the only substantial change to the article since the month after the coup, made in February 2007, but no references are presented to bolster the assertion. Biruitorul (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep not sure what the problem is if simply it's not been well updated — surely somebody with a greater familiarity than I with current economics could update it. Surely a valid topic for an article.  Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like a notable topic backed up by sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, perfectly good and notable topic. Everyking (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That raises a couple of questions. First: what about, say, Economic consequences of the 1953 Iranian coup d'état or Economic consequences of the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état -- coups where, unlike what is acknowledged in this article's lead, these consequences were rather more than "relatively minor"? Yes, I know the stock answer ("somebody's going to write those at some undefined point in the future"), but realistically, those probably aren't coming down the pipeline, and this one did, for the simple reason that Wikipedia didn't exist in 1948 or 1953, and did in 2006. Second, and more important: in the 20 months since the coup, we've shown ourselves quite capable of writing decent material on this subject - in the main article. Will we suffer if we keep that content and remove this one, which is far beneath standard? If, some day, that section of the main article becomes long enough, then split, but for now we can easily make do with the quality content there and axe this hack job. Biruitorul Talk 04:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have more faith than you do in the future scope of Wikipedia's coverage, but even if not, that would be no reason to limit what we have on events occurring in 2006&mdash;it would make as much sense as a person who, having lost one leg in an accident, decides to chop off the other as well, for the sake of symmetry. Everyking (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That takes care of my first point, and the issue probably won't be resolved in this AfD. However, what about point 2? What precisely would we lose by deleting this? The topic, notable or not (and let's assume notability for the sake of argument), receives ample coverage here and -- would you agree with me? -- substantially poorer treatment here. Personally, I don't think deleting this until and unless well-written prose on the subject can again be split off the main article is such a bitter pill to swallow. Biruitorul Talk 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Possible frivolous nom by a monarchist . Well-sourced article, notable and valid topic.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject with real world significance. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:35, 25 May 2008 (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.