Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portfolio investment


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  01:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Portfolio investment

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIC. Article has existed for years with no improvement except it doesn't know if it's a foreign portfolio investment or a generic portfolio investment. Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And what effort have you put in to determining whether this stub is incapable of expansion? Per deletion policy, we only delete stubs if they cannot be expanded, not simply because they haven't yet been.  When you see a stub, try to expand it as your first resort.  At AFD, you must be able to demonstrate that you've tried to find sources for expansion and failed.  It's fairly clear from even a minimal and cursory attempt to find out what the literature on portfolio investments is that your first thought has been to come to AFD with no attempt to actually write the encyclopaedia first.  If the article doesn't explain things, then fix it so that it does in accordance with the copious literature on the subject.  You're meant to be a Wikipedia writer.  So write!  Don't be yourself a part of the no-editors-have-done-anything problem.
 * Uncle G (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've done a wonderful job of updating the article after your rant. It looks so much less like garbage now than it did when I nominated it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the one who wants article written right now, to your arbitrary schedule, not us. You are the one who claims to write in the area of legal topics.  You are the editor who is the problem.  Here you are still doing nothing whilst &mdash; ironically &mdash; complaining that nothing has been done.  And this in the face of people who have even put in the grunt work and handed sources to you on a platter, when you did nothing at all to find sources, even when you clearly knew what the topic was and what could be written.  sofixit applies.  Stop being part of the problem.  You are being exactly the very makes-zero-effort timewaster, who does nothing but tag articles for deletion rather than write, that you are purporting to decry.  Buck your ideas up.  You're meant to be a writer.  Wikipedia needs writers.  What it doesn't need are people who do what you are doing: who see things that they know about, make zero effort to write or even research the subject, and nominate valid stubs for deletion on the grounds that they themselves have made zero effort.  Wikipedia doesn't need people who make zero effort themselves but who nonetheless try to bully other volunteers into doing everything for them according to an arbitrary schedule that they've plucked from thin air.  Uncle G (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, AfD is such a collegial place. Where did I "claim" to write about legal topics? How do you define "arbitrary schedule"? If 4 years isn't enough for you, how many is? 6? 8? 300? Don't tell me what Wikipedia "needs" - you haven't a clue, only your highly inflated opinion that you know best.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief! You claim on your user page.  It's demonstrably a falsehood.  You don't write about legal topics.  You nominate them for deletion even when you know what to write on the subject, saying so in your nomination.  Your approach to the encyclopaedia is shoddy and lacking.  And it is you, not I nor anybody else, who are defining an arbitrary schedule for others to write to when you don't bother to write yourself on a subject that interests you and that you know about.  Buck your ideas up.  Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On my user page is a userbox that says "This user is interested in legal articles." Nowhere does it say I write legal articles. I guess in addition to your deplorable lack of civility, you also can't read. Too bad - there's still time to learn.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, AfD is such a collegial place. Where did I "claim" to write about legal topics? How do you define "arbitrary schedule"? If 4 years isn't enough for you, how many is? 6? 8? 300? Don't tell me what Wikipedia "needs" - you haven't a clue, only your highly inflated opinion that you know best.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief! You claim on your user page.  It's demonstrably a falsehood.  You don't write about legal topics.  You nominate them for deletion even when you know what to write on the subject, saying so in your nomination.  Your approach to the encyclopaedia is shoddy and lacking.  And it is you, not I nor anybody else, who are defining an arbitrary schedule for others to write to when you don't bother to write yourself on a subject that interests you and that you know about.  Buck your ideas up.  Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On my user page is a userbox that says "This user is interested in legal articles." Nowhere does it say I write legal articles. I guess in addition to your deplorable lack of civility, you also can't read. Too bad - there's still time to learn.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously notable, encyclopedic term. Nothing about the stub suggests it cannot be expanded through normal editing. Bongo  matic  14:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, the "article" has existed since 2008 and been tagged since 2009, and here we are, waiting for it to be "expanded through normal editing".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh2. There's an "argument to avoid" for this particular line of specious reasoning at WP:NOEFFORT. Bongo  matic  02:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG, being the subject of numerous independent sources which discuss it in detail. WP:NOTDIC is not a reason to delete nor is the age of article.  Warden (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2012 (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.