Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Property & casualty insurance (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 redirect to General insurance.  Sandstein  08:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Property & casualty insurance
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article came up for WP:AFD in 2006. The conclusion was redirect to Property insurance and add a link to Casualty insurance. That was done; but the article was recreated in 2015 as a DAB page with two partial title matches as the only entries. 11 years is a long time, so I thought it best to open a new discussion rather than just re-implement the 2006 decision. My proposal: re-affirm the 2006 decision. Narky Blert (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing vote. The more I look at the 2006 discussion, the more it strikes me as very inadequate indeed. User:DS1953 then made a forceful point, as User:CityOfSilver has pointed out here, that "Property & casualty insurance" may be a term of art. If so, the page under discussion should be turned into an article. I remain firmly convinced that the page should not be a DAB page, it breaks any number of MOS:DAB rules. Narky Blert (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing vote, again. See my comment on Avi's vote, below. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * At the first discussion, User:DS1953 said, "This is a common term in the insurance industry and this article serves a legitimate function, pointing people who look for the term to the appropriate page. Redirecting is not possible; which of the two distinct articles would you redirect to?" That argument didn't carry weight in 2006 but it's still a bit compelling. Is there really no value at all in maintaining this as a DAB page?  City O f  Silver  20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw that comment from 2006. I don't know what (if anything) WP:PTM said then; but in 2017, it says: "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title". A WP:SIA might be another solution, but I have no experience with those. Narky Blert (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * PTM makes an exception with the text "where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference." I think there is a risk since up until ten minutes ago, I would have guessed these terms meant the same thing, or that "property insurance" wasn't particularly distinct from using "casualty insurance" as an umbrella term. SIA seems like it would require a lot more expertise than I possess so I, personally, can't help there.


 * And the more I think about it, the more that old discussion gets on my nerves. The nom, User:Avraham, said "Already exist separate Property and Casualty pages," which is so irrelevant to a discussion about deleting a DAB that it's kind of a reason to keep it. Right after, Avraham added a vote that might be the worst attempt at sockpuppeting ever. (Am I right? Doesn't "Delete pn" mean "delete per nom?") The other delete, a strongly-worded vote from the long-vanished User:Perfecto, had no rationale at all. DS1953's is the only substantial argument I've seen either way.  City O f  Silver  20:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, back then, the understood mechanics of AfD were that merely nominating an article for deletion did not automatically mean that the nominator believed the article should be deleted, so practice (at least among many of the AfDs I was taking part in 11 years ago) was to explicitly make clear one's opinion if one was the nominator. It was assumed that the closers were intelligent enough to only count one of the two, should both exist [[file:face-smile.svg|28px]]. It is very likely mores have changed over the past decade. -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Even though it's been 11 years and the decision made in the 2006 AfD did not cause the world to come to an end, I still maintain that this is an established term of art in the insurance industry and if we are not going to have a complete article on the term, then at least someone who searches the term could be given a clear choice of where to go instead of a redirect to the slightly more limited term Property insurance. See:
 * Intro To Insurance: Property And Casualty Insurance and
 * What is Property and Casualty Insurance? - Allstate
 * -- DS1953 talk 18:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Insurance as a . Property and casualty has redirected to Insurance since 2010. Station1 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I could go along with that idea, too. My only strong opinion is, that the page under discussion is not a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * gud spot on Property and casualty as a possible R with possibilities, it looks exactly on point for this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to General insurance Speaking as a P&C actuary, in my experience, the term is used as a synonym for General insurance, or what Europeans would call Non-Life Insurance (ala ASTIN: Actuarial STudies In Non-Life). As a matter of fact, the lede of General Insurance reads: General insurance or non-life insurance policies, including automobile and homeowners policies, provide payments depending on the loss from a particular financial event. General insurance is typically defined as any insurance that is not determined to be life insurance. It is called property and casualty insurance in the U.S. and Canada and non-life insurance in Continental Europe. Which is a bit more fleshed out than it was in January 2006. -- Avi (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. That quote from General insurance looks precisely on point. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me too. Station1 (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to General insurance per Avraham - the quote from the lead is convincing. The term could be is bolded in the lead too, per MOS:BOLD: "To follow the "principle of least astonishment" after following a redirect, for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section ". And I've created redirect from Property and casualty insurance (ie "and" rather than "&") too. Pam  D  10:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC) 10:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note. I have just WP:BOLDLY retargetted Property and casualty (the redirect which Station1 found) to General insurance for the same reason. Narky Blert (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but change to a disambiguation page instead. --Oskinet (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's already a DAB page, which is both the problem and the reason why I nominated it - it goes against WP:PTM. Narky Blert (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2017 (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.