Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward-looking statement

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 keep. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forward-looking statement

This article tries to turn a narrow concept from modern United States financial law into a linguistics term and apply it to history research. If cleaned up it would be deletable as a dictdef. Google results for "forward-looking statement" plus "linguistics" are incidental references to modern finance and computing. [1] Google hits for "forward-looking statement" and "gerund" are virtually nonexistent. [2] User:Dzonatas has been trying to apply the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as a style manual for copyediting Joan of Arc. This is WP:Complete Bollocks. Delete. Durova 19:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep, clean-up and expand. The article represents a valid approach to forward looking statement, a business term that gets almost 1 million google hits. We clearly need an article on the concept, which is comparable to numerous other articles here on financial and legal terms. I see no reference here to Joan of Arc or Medieval history or anyone named Joan. As the nominator seems to be involved in a dispute with the submitting editor over an unrelated article, I question whether this is not a bad faith nomination. -- JJay 19:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment yes, I am also an editor on the Joan of Arc page. User:JJay advised me to nominate it here: "If you are that opposed to this article, for whatever reason, please follow procedure and take it to AfD. Thanks. -- JJay 19:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" User talk:Durova Now he accuses me of bad faith for following his advice. The nomination is substantive: this article makes claims for the term that extend far beyond any accepted use. Please follow my Google links for verification. Durova 19:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I advised you to follow procedure after you tagged this article with a nonsense speedy. We have many templates that can be used if you disagree with the content in an article. Again, your reference above to Joan of Arc is irrelevant and I seriously question the need for this nom. -- JJay 19:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Then I ask you to strike your accusation of bad faith. I tagged it as nonsense because it conflates a narrow piece of financial terminology with general statements about grammar, linguistics, and historiography. The phrase has no application to those fields. Style manuals don't teach students to end creative essays with "forward-looking statements." This is pure fantasy on the part of the article creator with jargon added to impress the unaware. If it gave the actual dictdef I would have tried to transwiki. Durova 21:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: If it was only dictdef, it would be limited to forward-looking and not the more historic forward-looking statement reference. Please note that User:Durova has bias about deletion beyond this article's content. As noted on User_talk:Switisweti, "...Dzonatas...created a fictitious article Forward-looking statement which I've nominated for deletion. Happy holidays... (snicker)... Durova 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" On my talk page: "Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.<!-- Test2 (second level warning) --> Durova 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" — Dzonatas 23:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
          • That's a good example of quoting out of context. Durova 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have cut this right down to only the U.S. financial topic. If restricted to this context, keep, and expand. Otherwise, delete.-- The Anome 21:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep & Expand: It is not fantasy, and it is not just a financial term. Here is a reference to a site that teaches to use a forward-looking statement in an essay: http://teacher.scholastic.com/writeit/essay/draft/essay.htm. It is obviously based on (or simply opposite of) historical facts rather then points of financial performace as Durova tried to assert. — Dzonatas 21:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - sooner rather than later, to use a forward-looking statement. All statements which are not about assigning blame are forward-looking statements. Endomion 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep. A notable and important expression; even if only its legal part. mikka (t) 02:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It is more notable by its legal usage; however, the reader should know the basis for which such statements entail. Hence, one doesn't finally learn about such statements after one is employed by a business. The roots of it are in linguistics and social sciences. I want to address how businesses also organize their plans with a forward-looking statement on efficency at the start of the year and with a backward-looking statement that reflects how much they acheived at the end of the year. This would help expand the article a bit more when I find a good source. If there is anything close to original research, it would be how forward-looking statements affect the accreditation of an entity by its subject material, but the abundance of search-hits on disclaimer related context makes it harder to avoid the "shorter" temptation of an exploitation by common sense. With wikipedia's implementation of "approved" and "developmental" versions of articles, I 'm sure, scientifically, any forward-looking statement is a considerable qualifier or at least a questionable one, like how it works in law. Societies settled on "open source" as not jargon, and, in a similar way, we have the common expression for a forward-looking statement. — Dzonatas 10:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 13:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm surprised you stated "per nom." If you review Durova's nom related argument about Joan of Arc, you'll notice the page is protected. As of Dec 16th, Durova and possibly another editor has tried to revert any further change. A review of the talk section reveals where Durova states the notes being WP:Complete Bollocks because of functionality, yet other editors and I have found the notes to functionally work correctly. I'm sure the nom is part of Durova's continuation to "edit war." The subject of a forwarding-looking statement does not have anything to do with a style guide, but it is about historical fact. Obviously, Durova feared this might be an issue for whatever reason. Consider, Durova put up the AfD tag the same day I created it. Durova and another editor has strived to make Joan of Arc a FA, but in essence has also tried to own the article. Joan of Arc may become a FA one day, but not by ownership, reverts, or in the chase of my activity on the forward-looking statement article to put it a nonsense nom on AfD. Instead of the defensive side which I shouldn't have to do for an AfD, notice the content is still verifiable. Even if it is hard to wade through over a million search-hits. — Dzonatas 15:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: With limited attention to the VfD process for this page, I'm left to make further comment in the hollow. I've noticed the related WP:POINT subjects and concluded the nom was an experiment of Durova's. In contrast, I've also noticed other articles that haven't been so quickly put up on AfD, like Functional shift which has barely any content. It receives only 13k hits on google. While that is easier to wade through and find verifable content, there are many hits that express a different definition than given. There is also the Shatt language that barely has any impression, which google reports only 160k hits just for "shatt." Nevertheless, just "forward-looking" alone comes up with more than 17 million hits. — Dzonatas 06:10, 27 December 2005 (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.