Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. ticker symbols (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

List of U.S. ticker symbols
After a decent amount of review, I have decided that a consensus should be reached regarding the proposed deletion of List of U.S. ticker symbols. The 1st nomination is here.I would also like to make the following points:


 * Category: Companies is the main category for all companies listed on Wikipedia, and there is a subset of that called Category:Companies_by_stock_exchange. Within this category are all U.S. Stock exchanges individually, Category:Companies_listed_on_the_New_York_Stock_Exchange, etc. Thus, instead of having a list of ticker symbols by country, it makes more sense to seperate the lists by individual exhange. This page should be created in the format of Companies_listed_on_the_New_York_Stock_Exchange_(by Symbol) because there are already categories for stocks listed by company name.


 * List of U.S. ticker symbols contains an absurdly large amount of broken links. A quick lookup of many of the symbols indicates that the stock symbol is no longer in use and in addition, many of the companies seem to also no longer exist. I am unfamiliar with the exact source of the content, but it clearly does not match up with the NYSE or NASDAQ listings on wikipedia. There is no reason we shouldn't have this content in the encyclopedia, but in this format it is mostly useless.

If I think of any other points, I will list them. Flying Hamster 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 *  Strong Delete  I'm going to start this one off with a strong delete recommendation. Flying Hamster 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Hmm, while I don't think this list is particularly good, I can't really get behind the categories approach either. I go into those categories, and it seems like there's several subcategories that really shouldn't be there, since they don't really cover that subject, but are rather related to the company.  That's not quite the place for it, and I think it messes up the flow of the pages, which are already bothersome enough.  I don't know where the source for this page was either, but it seems that it uses all caps as opposed to the format Wikipedia uses, which explains the number of redlinks.  It could probably be more or less fixed with a style-script, but I'm not going to suggest doing that until there's more consensus on how to this thing.  I also think that the current way the  NYSE companies are listed is poorly done, since it makes over a dozen pages when a single page might be what somebody wants.  Though that could be easily solved with adding another page listing every company in the NYSE for example, on it.  Anyway, I really think something more constructive than an outright deletion needs to be done, but I'm not ready to propose anything right now myself.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see your problem with the categories exactly... I also don't understand what you mean when you say that the current way that the NYSE companies are listed makes over a dozen pages... I think that alphabetical sections are appropriate when listing anything of this magnitude. There isn't any need to have a page that itself lists every company in the NYSE when we have this page with this page linked to from it. Also, salvaging this page will be more difficult than you mention, since a substantial quantity of these links are companies that do not have any wikipedia entry at all, and furthermore may no longer exist. As well as this, this page arbitrarily claims to list all U.S. stock market ticker symbols when seperate pages for each stock market would be far more appropriate. Flying Hamster 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To illustrate the problem with categories, go to: Category:Companies_listed_on_the_New_York_Stock_Exchange and see the subcatergories.  It just seems a little ugly.  I think alphabetical listings may have some use, but I'd suggest a combined list for times when you want to search the whole thing at once.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how Category:Companies_listed_on_the_New_York_Stock_Exchange is ugly besides the fact that it is a category page. It is not dissimilar to other regular category pages. Wikipedia does not currently have any equivalant of Companies_listed_on_the_New_York_Stock_Exchange_(by Symbol), or its NASDAQ counterpart, etc, and there is an obvious encyclopedic imperative to first create these listings (which would not be category pages). Wikipedia isn't the place to list databases of symbols based on the nation in which the stock market they are in is located. I think this may be an example of WP:LC as well as WP:BIAS as it seems to fit in with the characterization of the inherant biases in wikipedia to have a list of U.S. only ticker symbols instead of a global list of ticker symbols (not that I would enourage such a cumbersome listing). WP:LISTV talks about how lists are sometimes used to get past WP:NOT and WP:V and since a large portion of the links that are here are unverifiable and the listing is primarily a resource to conduct business, I believe that this is the case for List of U.S. ticker symbols. Flying Hamster 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I had to think about this one for a bit. Aside from the fact that this list is going to be incredibly difficult to maintain (as evidenced by its current state and the fact that this information changes constantly), I don't think this list makes much sense. If this were a list of stock ticker symbols on the NASDAQ or NYSE, then maybe this works. But a combined list of all US exchanges is less useful. In some cases, a company can have multiple symbols, making this format even less useful. This sort of information is better off in individual lists of symbols for notable stock exchanges (American or otherwise). ScottW 02:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually think a combined list is better, since it allows someone who doesn't know what exchange a given company is on to look them up. And I don't see why there's a problem with multiple symbols.  Just have them all on there if that's a concern.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are going to list a symbol that exists on multiple stock markets on one page, that page should not be a list of U.S. Ticker Symbols, it should be a list of all ticker symbols. However, this approach is prone to unencyclopedic pages that will not be updated and will have a ton of broken links constantly. Currently, this page is of very little use compared with say, finance.yahoo.com, which is a much-used resource for ticker symbol verification in the U.S. Stock Exchanges especially. Keeping an outdated and redundant list is unneccesary. Flying Hamster 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That a company like yahoo.com is willing to pay people and keep their lists up-to-date and accurate is a natural consequence of Wikipedia is a community-driven approach, as opposed to profit-driven. That's not a good argument, as there are literally thousands of databases with better, more up to date information than Wikipedia.  We don't delete articles on sportsteams just because you can find more recent information on them elsewhere.  Nor do I understand your comment about a list of all ticker symbols when you have multiple stock markets or multiple symbols.  You can still restrict it to markets within the US.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, the reason Yahoo keeps its lists up-to-date and accurate is because they are actively invested in the quality of information on their site because they make a large profit from the verifiability of their information. Secondly, Yahoo outdates wikipedia by many years, and they have always had a reputation for the quality of their economic data and statistics. What you call the community-driven approach of wikipedia is something that I have a deep respect for and understanding regarding. If you are suggesting, however, that wikipedia, because of this non-profit approach, has more accurate information, then you are mistaken. It is an inherant quality of wikipedia to have unreliable information, and this is important for everyone from editors to researchers to understand. In this case, however, the difference in information is aggregious and the updating would be infinitely more intensive than the update of a sports team's roster. Additionaly, I am not proposing a list of all ticker symbols anywhere, I was pointing out the WP:BIAS in having a U.S. only listing since there are not canadian exclusive listings, etc. Flying Hamster 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Touchy situation. Current format is unmaintainable, without a dedicated WikiProject. Other solutions offerend aren't much better. I rather like the idea of Wikipedia having this information, but in this case we're just reinventing the wheel. I would rather leave the heavy lifting of this type of information to sites like http://finance.yahoo.com/ where they have dedicated professionals maintaining their lists, and save our volunteer man-hours for other articles. -- RoninBK E TC 07:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If a company has an article AND is a ticker symbol on one of the many worldwide exchanges, then add a category to the article. There is no point in having a list which doesn't get maintained. Edison 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete way too cumbersome to be properly maintained and verified. Plus, this is the last place people would look for what a symbol meant.Balloonman 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete word.this page is whack. Frustratedbird 15:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (note: i gave a link of what I was doing in wikipedia to this user and he took it upon himself to comment... you can disregard his comment as he is not familiar with WP:POL...) Flying Hamster 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Searching for Rough Consensus I believe that this proposed deletion should be extended to the point that a rough consensus can be reached. The debate has gotten lengthy and while not resorting to a vote, I believe there should be an attempt to gauge the degree of consensus that exists regarding the proposed deletion of List of U.S. ticker symbols. Flying Hamster 19:55, 18 November 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.