Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prudent 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 07:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Prudent Investment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. This is an essay. The sources don't support the material, and this isn't actually the meaning of this term. This may conceivably be a notable concept under some name, but (a) it looks like nothing more than an explanation of some guy's theory on how public utilities should be regulated (see deleted copyright violations from a paper on some guy's theory in page history) and (b) even if it is notable, it's not notable under this name and I see no way to figure out what name it's notable under.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Edits have been made to clarify the meaning of Prudent Investment. To your point about the title, I agree that the title should be changed, and propose changing it to Prudent Investment Rule. I disagree about the comment that this is an essay, and would request you to elaborate. I do not see the copyright violations; this article was written using 8 sources, which are included. The entire "Disallowance" section was taken from an Oak Ridge National Laboratory article (which has been appropriately cited). I would like to argue that this article not be deleted. GlobalNRG30 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm willing to withdraw this request for deletion if the page creator will agree to put the article through the review process at articles for creating and allow it to be taken out of article space. Despite their claims of proper sourcing, the original version contained massive copyright violations and it's still not clear that they're all removed.  I think if there's an actual article underneath this essay it needs multiple eyes on it and the creator needs a lot of advice on how to write Wikipedia articles that I don't have time to provide.  Thus perhaps moving it out of mainspace into userspace or AfC would be a reasonable compromise.  But although I still don't see evidence for notability of the concept I'm willing to believe that the creator can make the case over time.


 * Keep The “copyright violation” and other “violations” of which you accuse this entry to recommend deletion are without merit (in both this version and any historical versions). All content that has been used in this entry is appropriately cited and is compliant with the guidelines of Wikipedia. At this point, I do not think the article needs to be placed in a review process. GlobalNRG30 (talk)


 * Comment Now that the author has identified the actual subject of this article as the "Prudent investment rule" I will say that I think this topic is notable, but this article isn't about it. It seems in the literature to be the same thing as the Prudent man rule and to cover a wide range of investment decisions not specific to public utilities.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The two articles you reference above are individually based (and talk much more philosophically), not giving much description or attention to real world applications. On the other hand, this Wiki page is the explanation of a rule that is applied and exercised in states across the country. I would like to request this article be taken out of AfD, as it just seems we are debating about nothing that has merit for deleting this article. GlobalNRG30 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The "prudent investment" rule at issue here is a rule of rate regulation, and is not the same thing as the prudent man rule applied to fiduciaries that is discussed in our article of that name.  Vastly oversimplified, the prudent investment rule is based on the idea that the regulated company is entitled to a reasonable rate of return on its "prudent investments". The issue comes up, for example, when a utility closes down (or never opens) a power plant and asks the regulatory authority for a rate increase allowing it to recover its capital costs from its customers, rather than have its stockholders and/or lenders suffer an investment loss.  There's lots of writing on this through the decades, from all sorts of points of view (a few, randomly selected from the first pages of a search:).
 * Having said that, while the concept is certainly notable, I am undecided if I think this concept currently supports its own article or can be adequately covered, for the moment, at another page like rate-of-return regulation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, at this point I'm thinking that I'm out of my depth and was misled by the original massive copyright violations. I will be guided by your opinion, should you form one.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:07, 1 May 2014 (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.