Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial misconduct

:{{la|Financial misconduct}} ([{{fullurl:Financial misconduct|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial misconduct}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This page purports to be a disambiguation page but none of the terms are ambiguous or even similar. See WP:DISAMBIG. Drawn Some (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete pointless. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete so someone is going to type in financial misconduct whilst looking for information on Nigerian scam? why wouldn't someone just type nigerian scam first? LibStar (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - serves no useful purpose. Potential magnet for libel/BLP violations. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• At the very least, redirect to Fraud or Embezzlement. It could be kept, though, with the Nigerian scam (and maybe Ponzi scheme) removed. The very fact that someone felt compelled to create it suggests that it's a potential search term, and having a redirect doesn't hurt (WP:Don't worry about performance). The whole point of dab or redirect pages is so that when people type in a search term like this they can find the article that's most related to what they're looking for, and that's what this can do; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ns0=1&ns2=1&ns6=1&search=Financial+misconduct&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Advanced+search search results without having this page here] are useless, so this page is an improvement. The fact that the terms linked in the dab page are not all similar doesn't mean it should be deleted; "financial misconduct" is a pretty ridiculously broad term, so it makes sense that a lot of unrelated things would fit under it, and who knows which of them the person is searching for. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::No, that is not the purpose of a disambiguation page. The purpose is stated at the bottom of the disambiguation page itself: It is to differentiate between articles associated with the same title. The article do not have similar titles. Drawn Some (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::The crux is "associated with". The articles may not all have the same title, but they might be associated with it, in that someone searching for X might type in Y (or, vice versa, that someone who types in Y might be looking for X). Arguing over whether or not their titles happen to look similar is, I think, splitting hairs, and if you feel that is what {{tl|disambiguation}} means then maybe we should start a discussion at the template's talk page about how the template could be reworded. Ultimately, disambiguation pages are navigational tools and should help users navigate, and that's how I've chosen to define "associated with". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Perhaps if you review WP:DISAMBIG you will see what the guideline says. I didn't invent disambiguation pages nor did I contribute to the guideline and it seems straightforward enough that I don't believe your interpretation would be within its spirit much less actual wording. If this sort of disambiguation page were to be considered acceptable then we can take the whole dictionary and make a disambiguation page for each entry using information from a thesaurus and then go from there by playing word association and anything that pops into mind regarding a particular word or phrase should be included in a disambiguation page under that title. Drawn Some (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as a superfluous, indiscriminate list. JIP | Talk 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect per Rjanag. I'm quite surprised at Drawn Some, who (I would have thought) is by now experienced enough to know that plausible search terms shouldn't be redlinks. If someone might search for it, then things to consider are redirects, disambiguation pages, soft redirects to Wiktionary, etc.

  The basic idea is that a plausible search term should lead to something that'll help the end-user find the information they want.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::I'm quite surprised at you, S Marshall, not being familiar with WP:DISAMBIG or else deliberately choosing to ignore guidelines in a deletion discussion. Drawn Some (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::C'mon, Drawn Some, I suspect you're being deliberately disingenuous here. It's a very peculiar reading of WP:DISAMBIG that doesn't let us disambiguate "financial misconduct" into "fraud" or "embezzlement" and, if that reading is somehow correct then, I submit, WP:COMMON should prevail here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Which part of the first two sentences of the guideline do you not understand? I will assume good faith that you are being serious but I'm not going to continue this silly back-and-forth. Drawn Some (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I think I understand those first two sentences very clearly, and with all due respect, I'm wondering if you do.

"Financial misconduct" is ambiguous. It could mean several things. Someone might well search for it. Therefore it needs disambiguating, QED.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:*"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawn Some (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - We don't delete topics because they're "superfluous", "pointless", or a magnet for BLP vios. We delete articles that cover topics which aren't notable. Financial misconduct definitely meets our notability guidelines. If it's poorly written (and I agree that it is), rewrite it. To be practical, we could just temporarily redirect to Fraud until someone has the time to cover it properly. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::It's not an article, it's a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page "lists articles associated with the same title", like it says at the bottom of Financial misconduct. The articles listed have very dissimilar titles. See the guideline WP:DISAMBIG. Drawn Some (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Then make it an article. This is a notable topic. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Since an important aspect of this debate is whether it's reasonable to disambiguate "Financial misconduct" into "Embezzlement", "Fraud" etc., I've dropped a note here for a view from editors interested in disambiguation. This is not intended as canvassing, and I hope I've phrased my remark neutrally.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22financial+misconduct%22&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search A search on "financial misconduct"] turns up 18 instances on Wikipedia other than the page under AfD. It does not appear to need a disambiguation page (none of the other articles are themselves ambiguous with "financial misconduct"), so a stub article on what these other articles mean by "financial misconduct", a list article noting what kinds of financial misconduct there are, or a redirect until one of the articles gets written would seem to be better than deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't WP:DISAMBIG anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate any plausible search terms. Tavix |  Talk  20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Misconduct which seems a better start on the more general topic. A section on financial impropriety would fit nicely there and can be broken back out as and when the article grows too large. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2009 (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.