Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failure To Deliver Shares (FTD)

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 of the debate was delete. Babajobu 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failure To Deliver Shares (FTD)

POV fork of Naked short selling by users seeking to avoid seeking consensus on that article's talk page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Also be aware that this page's existence has been advertised on outside pages, so meatpuppetry may ensue. Please check commenters' contributions carefully. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious POV fork Savidan 03:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV StarTrek 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Re ESkog's point above: the vandalism that necessitated protection of the page was apparently a result of meatpuppetry as well. See, e.g., "Wikipedia Entry On Naked Short Selling Hijacked by Bad Guys?", "Sanity Check" blog, Jan. 28. The proprietor of the "Sanity Check" website, Bob O'Brien, is director of the National Coalition Against Naked Shortselling. According to the editing history, he is a principal author of Failure To Deliver Shares (FTD)--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back to Naked short selling or delete. Stifle 16:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant POV fork, unencyclopedic, poorly written and rambling. Written by users from organized pressure group as a way of circumventing consensus -- they just stalked off and wrote this article. It focuses on a technical aspect of the naked short-selling controversy, already fully covered in the article, to present a one-sided POV. Verbosity and one-sided nature of article makes merger into naked short-selling impossible. --Mantanmoreland 18:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I created this article. And I would like to clarify some things.

• Failure to Deliver shares does not equate with Naked short selling. On this, Mantanmoreland, has been very adamant. Just read his comments on the discussion page of the Naked Short Selling page where he is adamant about the fact that FTDs are not all caused by Naked Short Selling. I agreed with him there and I agree with him here. FTDs are a separate issue and topic that stands on it's own two feet and with differently legal definitions, causes and effects. It is a topic that stands all by itself and is apart from Naked Short Selling. Like an article about a Musical Orchestra and another on individual musical instruments, the both make music, but they're not the same and they're both legitimate articles on different topics.

• Why is a WIKI article on "Short Selling" or "Futures Contracts" etc., somehow not offensive, but an article on failing to deliver, is? Let's just reduce the entire market mechanisms and effects to the consensus of the naked short selling article then, if that's the logic. This logic makes no sense.

• The fact that Bob O'brian made some edits, is not in itself a reason for removing the article, is it? Please tell me WIKI is not that way. Perhaps he should make some edits on the naked short selling article (I think he has, actually) so that it can be removed on the same grounds? Doesn't each article stand on it's own two feet? Why should my article be removed without any factual arguments what so ever?

--71.106.236.198 01:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not an accurate characterization of the discussion in the other page. What I said was that not all FTDs are naked shorts, in response to the assertions of the above user they were identical. Now he is arguing the opposite, in suppoort of his POV fork.

FTDs only have public significance as an aspect of the naked-shorting controversy. The head of the anti-shorting lobby himself makes that point in his website, saying that "The practice of defrauding investors by taking their money and not delivering the product they paid for has many names. Some call it market manipulation, some call it naked short selling, others call it failing to deliver..." [1]. Though his comments re "defrauding investors" are rejected by regulators, he is correct what is at issue here is a single issue, most commonly known as "naked short selling." See Google -- 414,000 hits for "naked short selling" vs. 174 for "failure to deliver shares" with virtually all of the latter in the naked-shorting context. --Mantanmoreland 03:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Should the above two comments be moved to the discussion page? --Mantanmoreland 16:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, Nobody knows the reason or context of why someone googles a term. The use of this type of logic will steer wrong almost every time, and when it doesn't it's coincidence.

IF this article is to be deleted, the information here should be merged into the naked short selling article, otherwise a big chunk of information would be left out of WIKI.

As an example, what does an FTD create? The SEC says it creates a securities entitlement, but what exactly is that?, Etc.... Naked shorting creates and FTD and an FTD creates.....

It would be incorrect to say and naked short sale creates a securities entitlement. Certainly the end result of all naked short selling is not always the creation of a securities entitlement. There are a lot of little steps in between that then fork the end result this way or that...

So I'm OK with the deletion of this page, so long as the information contained here is merged into the naked short selling article

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommytoyz (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 February 2006

Fine. I would suggest proposing what additions you want to make to the discussion page of Naked Short Selling. A wholesale "merger" of this lengthy and poorly written page, with all its duplications, would overwhelm the Naked Short-Selling page. --Mantanmoreland 20:47, 15 February 2006 (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.