Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S&P Municipal Bond Index


 * 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 Standard & Poor's. The Bushranger One ping only 01:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

S&P Municipal Bond Index

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article stub about one type of stock index from S&P. Not notable to be an article on its own and no real content to merge back into the unlinked, parent article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect without merge to Standard & Poor's or something similar. It's a good search term. No comment on notability for now, but I suspect there may be enough out there to build an article. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * undecided for now as it is, it is a stub that does nothing to demonstrate notability. However, we do have a number of indexes - see Category:American_stock_market_indices and Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average for an example. There are likely hundreds or even thousands of indexes, and I don't think all are notable, but I'm not sure if we have a notability standard for stock indexes. For now leaning to redirect unless the article can be beefed up significantly. S&P has likely 1625 indexes in their portfolio; I think even listing would run afoul of WP:NOT, so we really need some way of deciding which indexes are notable enough to be covered - the DJA is an obvious one, but beyond that how do we decide?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to any of the 3 links. The article as is stands is not useful. If someone wants to expand later with sources, they are welcome to try. --Onorem (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect per the others; anytime you've got a problematic page with a good title, a redirect should be chosen ahead of AFD. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedural_question I have posted a question on the talkpage. Thanks, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Another procedural_question Why are there 6 editors spending their time in discussing the deletion of this notable article instead of helping build it? This is not helping the goal of building the  free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Don’t  you agree? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. We have too many articles, and not enough editors. Sometimes, deletion improves the encyclopedia - I know you may not believe this, but it's true. Incomplete/insufficient/poorly sourced/poorly maintained information is worse than none at all. Look at this search: - 5 results - and compare to this one  with ~20,000 results - DJA is clearly worthy of an article, but I'm not convinced this one is. Not all indexes are created equal, and I haven't seen any evidence provided that this index, amongst the ~1600 indexes produced by S&P and the thousands of other indexes produced by various companies, is worthy of its own article. Articles have a cost, and one reason articles are regularly deleted is b/c people feel the cost to maintain or build that article is not worth the effort. No-one is trying to save it because no-one seems to care, and there are very few sources that discuss the importance of this index that I've found - as you can see, in the scholarly search, it is almost never referred to, nor it is regularly referred to in books except in passing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Continued on talk page. XOttawahitech (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop moving deletion discussions to the talk page. What you don't realize is deleting poor articles is almost more important than writing new articles. If the quality of Wikipedia's articles goes down it affects the repetition of the website and community. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This index is important to those who follow Detroit's bankruptcy filing. XOttawahitech (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:58, 14 February 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.