Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forex scam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. John254 00:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Forex scam
Article is irreparably NPOV, unfairly painting with a too-broad brush one aspect of retail investing. Applicable deletion policies include WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NOT#ADVOCATE, WP:OPINION and WP:NOT#GUIDE. I suggest it be redirected to Fraud or something similar Ronnotel (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP - There should be no question that forex fraud exists and is common. When a Commissioner of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission(CFTC) calls it the "Fraud de jour," the CFTC issues warnings to the public about it, the Wall Street Journal and New York Times write articles about it, it certainly meets the requirements of notability and reliable sources. This is all documented in the lede. Altogether there are 13 references.
Whether the article is NPOV or not is another question. I started the article, forking it off of Foreign exchange market because the debates between some extreme views were about ready to take over that entire article. I've felt like I was in between 2 groups quite often in further editing the article.
BTW, I recognize that Ronnotel has some expertise in financial topics, and I've always considered him to be an excellent editor, indeed I consider him to be my friend. But I think there is no need to delete. To improve - obviously. Smallbones (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC) - Keep - article is well-referenced and appears to illustrate a legitimate problem. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The scam exists. The article is well references. People need to know about this. Frankly, keeping this is a more important service than most of the junk that clutters Wikipedia. Wryspy (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This isn't the best encyclopedia article but it's about as good as a lot of the others in the scam/fraud categories. It has the air of a "how-to" (recognize/report), but that can be fixed. Maybe some of it is a little harsh on what is a voluntary activity akin to online poker. But that's an editing issue. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the subject is notable, and can be sourced, and is in fact sourced. Other issues are content-related and are not reasons for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP: The article is fair. It warns people of potential difficulties and scams. It does not condemn all FOREX trading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.198.150.244 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep I do nor see NPOV problems, unless one thinks that the virtue of stealing should be presented. I suppose if someone has actually said they are a negligible price to pay for the efficient market operation and therefore should not be worried about much, we could add that to the article. the name though is a problem, because it looks at first glance as if it would be about a specific scam, not a class of scams. Perhaps this is an instance where we should make an exception to our rule and use a plural scams. - or the longer Foreign exchange scam even though it's not the colloquial term. DGG (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP: I am currently assisting an investigation that involves a network of insurance agents and brokers preying on their vulnerable elderly clients, encouraging them to invest all their savings in foreign exchange scams. This one involves moving their funds to a bank in Mexico. Victims are given no paperwork and told not to tell anyone. This topic needs much more attention, not less. I would really suspect the motives of anyone wanting to remove this and wonder if they are part of the illegal side of the foreign exchange trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.192.168 (talk) 04:55, 20 January 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.
