Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parametric Insurance
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 of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Parametric Insurance
Advertising spam for a non-notable insurance company. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 08:02:55Z
- It actually appears to be a type of insurance rather than any particular insurance company. Albeit, a very rare type of insurance, but a valid one. Peyna 08:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oy. Sorry about that; I got to the link from contributions from a user who has been spamming Wikipedia with NIASOM-related info (note the reference to NIA in the article), and obviously I didn't read the article carefully enough. I'm trying to come up with another reason for deletion here, and not really finding one. It does appear to be a valid concept with a specific definition, but I'm not informed enough to say whether or not the article has any merit. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 08:21:11Z
- Yeah, I noticed the user's other contributions, so I don't blame you for your suspicions. Peyna 08:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oy. Sorry about that; I got to the link from contributions from a user who has been spamming Wikipedia with NIASOM-related info (note the reference to NIA in the article), and obviously I didn't read the article carefully enough. I'm trying to come up with another reason for deletion here, and not really finding one. It does appear to be a valid concept with a specific definition, but I'm not informed enough to say whether or not the article has any merit. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 08:21:11Z
- Keep and cleanup. Upon searching, it appears to be an actual term used by credible sources. -- Kjkolb 10:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia does not deserve to have an emerging concept like "Parametric Insurance". It deserves at more serious place. Those who say National Insurance Academy of India and its allied institutions are spam, have wikipedia given right to as well not know "Parametric Insurance". Quick deletion recommended. Sum
- While a concept might be notable and worth of inclusion in an encyclopedia, a company that implements it is not necessarily. Think of it like any other invention. The invention of a product (say, Rollerblades) is notable; and the product is notable. But the fact that company XYZ makes and sells them is not in itself worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Peyna 18:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- From the article and what I've found on Google, it looks like this isn't a company. Your earlier comment seems to say the same thing. -- Kjkolb 19:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry if that comment seemed out context; I was replying to "Sum"'s comment regarding the National Insurance Academy of India articles which have been repeatedly deleted as spam and pointing out that while those particular companies using this method of insurance may not be worthy of an article; the actual method itself probably is. Peyna 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ah, I was extremely confused. :-) -- Kjkolb 18:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Sorry if that comment seemed out context; I was replying to "Sum"'s comment regarding the National Insurance Academy of India articles which have been repeatedly deleted as spam and pointing out that while those particular companies using this method of insurance may not be worthy of an article; the actual method itself probably is. Peyna 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- From the article and what I've found on Google, it looks like this isn't a company. Your earlier comment seems to say the same thing. -- Kjkolb 19:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- While a concept might be notable and worth of inclusion in an encyclopedia, a company that implements it is not necessarily. Think of it like any other invention. The invention of a product (say, Rollerblades) is notable; and the product is notable. But the fact that company XYZ makes and sells them is not in itself worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Peyna 18:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as real term used by a number of different people. Type of insurance. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Instead of being databased i find such a noble venture like Wikipedia is becoming captive to the whims and subjective angularities of individuals. I find the authors of National Insurance Academy of india have provided http://www.niapune.com as the official website, which could have been browsed before condemning a valid Government of India organization with all facts and metalinks available so transparently. I am ashamed to have joined the bandwagon at some stage before verifying the high credentials of this worl reputed research outfit of Government of India. Clean Wikipedia of these psycho-punchers rather than valid notable concepts beyond casual understanding by non-serious readers out to kill ideas the way it often happens. User:Sum
- Obviously my nomination of this article was flawed, as I have already admitted. Beyond that, I can't make sense of what you're saying. The article will mostly likely be kept at this point, though if it is, I will substantially rewrite it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-04 05:28:52Z
- Keep per Peyna -Meegs 20:46, 2 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.
