Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Ten mutual funds


 * 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 Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Top Ten mutual funds

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a contested PROD. I see it as an indiscriminate list article without encyclopaedic value. There is already an article on US mutual funds. The information is not useful for investment purposes and it does not illuminate any encyclopaedic topic that I can see. At best, it seems equivalent to sports stats. It could open the floodgates to hundreds of similar articles in which the performance of various types of collective investments are ranked over various time periods by various criteria. Lets leave this task to the specialist financial press and just link to them when we need to. The author disagrees so lets see what the consensus is. DanielRigal (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems like a spam magnet, a WP:COATRACK for advertisement, difficult to maintain (given the plethora of analysis firms that could offer an opinion if asked), a WP:COI magnet, and an argument waiting to happen. Of course, it's an inherently notable subject and numerous reliable sources can be found (for any given financial year) so policy may not support deletion. I'm leaning towards delete per WP:IAR. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not Jim Cramer (cue the bull sound effect and Hallelujah chorus), and we shouldn't be putting up arbitrary lists of top funds and such. Personally I think these lists are less constructive and more 'my fund is better than yours' schoolyard teasing by big guys in suits.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is performance data. We might as well publish every year's Foolish Four, or some other metric, and give parts of articles over to tracking corporate stock prices. This is outside the purview of an encyclopedia and comes dangerously close to investment advice. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per above, and also are we now giving advice without a securities license? --65.16.61.35 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (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.