Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enronomics


 * 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 of the debate was redirect. Done. Ifnord 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Enronomics
This article contains no content that isn't already at Creative accounting, a much more thorough article. The term is also not widespread; there are under 1000 google hits including Wikipedia. The term also falsely implies that there is an economic theory behind what happened, as opposed to fraud. --Bletch 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Creative accounting per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above; it's on shaky ground with under 1000 hits, but there's no harm in a redirect. -- Mithent 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. -- M @  th  wiz  2020  01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. A few things link to it and there's no harm in redirecting.  Maaaaybe throw in a reference to the word on Creative accounting, but not a full merge. Snurks T C 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologistic. -- Krash (Talk) 02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Krash. All "Enronomics" may be Creative accounting, but not all Creative accounting is "Enronomics". That makes it clearly unsuitable for a redirect. --Aaron 03:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Fine. Let me put it another way, see below. --Aaron 14:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Umm... A is a subset of B makes A perfectly suitable for a redirect to B if A isn't article-worthy. That B is not also a subset of A simply means that a redirect from B to A would be clearly unsuitable. -- Jonel | Speak 04:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. We have lots of redirects that address one small part of a greater article. Daniel Case 04:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Creative accounting. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 11:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. Redirects are cheap. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirects are indeed cheap. Elfguy 13:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Krash. Ginned-up neologism that violates WP:NPOV and thus does not belong in Creative accounting. --Aaron 14:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nomination. &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show!  (talk) 2006-02-08 15:26Z 
 * Redirect to Creative accounting FloNight 03:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - The Enron info should be added to Creative accounting Fosnez 12:54, 9 February 2006 (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.