Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall Street panic of May 6, 2010


 * 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   merge to May 6, 2010 Flash Crash. Clearly no need for two articles on the subject, so a merge seems the better solution. Shimeru (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wall Street panic of May 6, 2010

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. article about a recent trading anomaly - No reason to think it will be of significance outside the next few weeks. noq (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. No sign at the moment that this event will have any lasting significance and if it's relevant it can be included in relevant articles on financial crisis. Valenciano (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. And "panic" is a highly subjective word, considering what happened. Joal Beal (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not everything in the news is barred by WP:NOTNEWS. The working title isn't very good, and there may well be a meatier article than this one, since it isn't unusual for several editors to be starting  an article independently of each other.  This one, however, has the makings of historical significance.  Unlike most Wall Street anomalies, this one was triggered by an error and compounded by a computer; is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission; is leading to calls for reform of "high frequency trading" in the way that computer programs are used in buying and selling; etc. etc.  .  While most of the Dow's price fluctuations aren't newsworthy, this one was a drop of more than 1,000 points (10 percent)  in a matter of minutes.  It's notable.  Mandsford (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Will this be a notable event in 10 years that people will look up on Wikipedia. Waste of project space. - A   ML -Talk-Cont-Count
 * Comment Its recived a fair degeee of coverage, anmd I bleive is now the subject of an investigation. As such this may be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It has been called an historic drop,"the steepest decline ever in which the Dow dropped over 977 points and lost 9% of its value, until program buying kicked in.  It was the "biggest intraday loss since the crash of 1987." It was a drop of 1 trillion dollars in market value. It has had strong coverage in the short while since the occurrence, and President Obama, lawmakers and regulators are proposing revisions to trading practices to prevent a recurrence, indicating it is more than a one day news story. Edison (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Mandsford. Obviously notable event by all definitions, and let's stop using NOTNEWS as a blanket excuse to delete whatever people do not like. -- Cycl o pia talk  22:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because something is in the news, does not mean it falls under NOTNEWS. As Edison has stated, this was a drop for the record books, which gives it the appearance (at least at this time) of lasting notability. Whether this notability is real or illusory is impossible to tell this close to the actual event. Keeping the article now, allowing it to be worked on, and then perhaps brought back here for re-examination later would be the most prudent course of action. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Just as the market is now being moved by gross reflex action, so we have here a deletion nomination being made as a reflex, without the proper consideration and discussion laid down by our deletion process. The article was proposed for deletion within an hour of its creation  and there was no preliminary discussion of this.  When the prod was removed, there was still no discussion and the article still does not have a talk page.  Bringing the issue to AFD should be a last resort, not an immediate escalation.  We have several articles which cover this general topic area such as Algorithmic trading and it is our editing policy to keep good sourced information so that we may improve topics like this.  WP:NOTNEWS excludes mundane news like weather forecasts and traffic reports, not remarkable occurrences which are explicitly noticed and acted on by the most important people in the world.  Breaking news should be given time to mature before rushing to AFD so that the topic may be understood, the sources compiled, due diligence be done and good alternatives to deletion explored.  As recommended, new page patrollers should please patrol the bottom of the queue, not the top, so that they are dealing with articles that are at least a day old and so have had time to develop. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Minor blip in the daily news feed. WP:NOTNEWS is in place to cover items of passing, trivial interest. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentIt's hard to believe you have read the cites I included above, and then make that comment. Edison (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your lack of imagination is not my concern, sorry. :) There is no lasting significance of the event beyond the day that it happened, no 1929 market crash.  A single day when the market went south, the media did its usual masturbatory glee over it, and then on to Lady GaGa's newest fashion line. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your lack of research is my concern. :) This wasn't just about the market going south. Many stocks which were valued at say $80 a share briefly traded for 1 or even 0 cents. This has never happened in the history of financial markets. Stocks don't usually lose 8000% of their value in 5 minutes and then almost immediately rebound. --Rajah (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is rather dickish to keep suggesting that those who hold opposing points of view are some sort of backwoods rednecks who lack the ability to read about a news event beyond the headline. Stocks drop, stocks rebound, it was a day of news and some minor fodder for the Daily Show.  If this had caused a huge and continuing decline, sure, it would probably with article-worthy. No one will remember this in a few months time, at it has had no lasting impact or WP:EFFECT elsewhere.  Everyone else in the world has moved on; so should you.Tarc (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENT: Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources - That's what happened in this case. Also, WP:EFFECT: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. . As for your "no one will remember this in a few months time", well, if it is the case, this is a strong reason I'd have personally for keeping -documenting notable events even if they disappeared from the front pages is a strongly encyclopedic purpose in my view. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a "widespread impact". Funny, but coming in to work today I didn't pass many sharecroppers making their way across the Dustbowl. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Stocks don't usually lose 8000% of their value in 5 minutes and then almost immediately rebound." Actually, nothing ever loses 8000% of its value, ever. The most that anything can lose is 100% of its value. Physalia physalis (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This event, for its financial magnitude, quickness, and mystery as to its exact cause is unique and unprecedented. It has been reported on by large numbers of reliable, international sources. It is interesting, and will be studied, and people will want to read about it well into the future. Learn something - read a book today! (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Random intraday stock market fluctuations aren't notable, but this is different (otherwise it would have dropped out the news immediately). The market move by itself is just a curiosity--the frantic search for causes, and possibility of trader/computer errors give this more potential for long term notability. If something like this had happened 30 years ago, and it was sufficiently well-documented, I don't think anyone would want to delete it. Let it develop, and if the story does drop out of the news cycle without a trace, you can always renominate it in a couple of months. 140.247.253.91 (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * admittedly, the article as it stands needs a lot of improvement--doesn't really explain the event's notability. 140.247.253.91 (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)'''

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooka and Fygar (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Oops! I guess I forgot to do those four things! Pooka and Fygar (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Per Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with May_6,_2010_market_event which is better sourced (though it needs more on the hypothesis of technical error). I suppose those who think this is NOTNEWS should nominate that one too... 140.247.240.144 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Merge This is a major unprecedented event in the financial markets. If we delete this article, then we should delete Black Monday (1987) etc. I have merged this article into the May 6, 2010 market event already. It is heavily sourced, verifiable, and of lasting importance. --Rajah (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Merger is required could be appropriate, since it was one notable event on one day. Edison (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no, nothing is "required". This why we're here, to have a discussion on the matter and for all that are interested to weigh in.  Your comment is rather odd...and not to be tallied separately in the final consideration, as you already voted earlier. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The topic of the two articles seems to be the same, and it is silly to thus have two such articles. Merge is an argument consistent with keep, since the references and content can be kept. No "tally" is necessary since this is not a vote. Edison (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed they do seem to be about nthe saem event, So I will change my vote to merge.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete or Merge We already have May 6, 2010 Flash Crash which is a neater and more thorough article. --NortyNort (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested What the title should be will need some revision as we see what becomes the standard. Neither article is really very good, and a great deal more should and will be said as the expected sources and studies accumulate. But the original idea to delete this is about as absurd a misunderstanding of NOT NEWS as I can imagine.  DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge this is reliably sourced, and further investigations by the SEC should yield more information and thus Notability. Not News is about something that would be not talked about for more than a day (like "Joe Blow was killed in the 300 block of oak street. criminal was found near the scene and arrested" or "Paris Hilton spotted in Las Vegas"); this is clearly a mis-application of the concept. It was also, as someone above put it "Unique and unprecedented." --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with May 6, 2010 Flash Crash per DGG - seems a notable topic (but would be better covered in only one article). Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:25, 16 May 2010 (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.