Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk of ruin


 * 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. Edits to article and pointers from DreamFocus for the win. No sense in having this languish if I'm wrong. NAC. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 16:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Risk of ruin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

We are not a dictionary. --  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 05:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Risk of ruin is an important financial concept. I will add more sources to the article and hopefully you will agree! Thank you. Statoman71 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That it's important doesn't really enter the picture, you need to flesh out in the article the importance of this. In a nutshell, if you can make it more than what amounts to a dictionary definition, that will satisfy my concerns and I will change my mind.  There may be others floating around depending on discussion forthcoming.  Please, read both of those links.  Also, read up on reliable sources. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. The policy cited by the nomination tells us to expand articles beyond their definitions.  This is best done by marking the article as a stub rather than deleting it. Warden (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.


 * Keep Click on the Google book search at the top of the AFD. Lot of books about "risk of ruin" in its financial term.  It is something notable, there books written about understanding it and strategies concerning to it.  Probably need to find some people who took business/economic courses in college and ask what was in their textbooks about it.   D r e a m Focus  11:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep DreamFocus's analyses is, as ever, bang on the money. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Eh, I was wrong. =) -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 16:31, 26 April 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.