Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schedule p

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 delete. Sr13 01:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schedule p

Schedule p (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - This is about (or a copy of?) a schedule to some insurance document for which no article occurs; there is no context, and despite requests to add context, the creating editor cannot or will not. Carlossuarez46 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is an article about a piece of an insurance industry reporting form that we do not have an article about. Does not assert notability, and I think having articles about all US government tax and reporting subforms would probably be beyond Wikipedia's scope regardless. Serpent's Choice 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability, no context. Ford MF 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no context. Possibly a joke. Lankiveil 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete, Per Ford MF & Lankiveil. --Random Say it here! 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- prob a speedy candidate as {{nonsense}} Thunderwing 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. This is the most notable schedule used by Actuaries. People who peruse online discussions about accounting scandals regarding insurance companies will wonder about the "schedule P." If Wikipedia knows what it is, that is a plus for Wikipedia. Perhaps the author should add some history and controvery surrounding the schedule P. (there are both.)


  • Author's response:

1. Here is the context that I put for this article. I did my best to follow the templete of other wikipedia entries:

[Category:Insurance] [Category:Accounting in the United States] [Category:Actuarial science]

Please clarify if this is not what you meant.

2. You have to start somewhere. I'd like to add more as I have time but if wikipedia is missing an entire category of information you can't put it in context until you make more entries. You can't do that when your fist one is deleted for not being in context. Also this is not a 'tax subform' any person's (stock market analyst) who's job it is to analyze the financial strength of an insurance company knows what this is. Any accountant who works in the insurance industry knows what this is and would benefit from this information. Also as for the 'scope' of wikipedia apparently it's okay to have extremely esoteric topics from the tech industry but it's not okay to have esoteric topics from other industries? Here are some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_ring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments

There are 10x the number of people in the US who would need to know what schedule P was for an insurance company than would need to know about a Token ring. Do we a separate wikipedia for insurance professionals? another one for banking professionals? another for gardening enthusiests? another for physicists?

3. addressed above

4. Please try googling before making the assertion that something is a joke. http://www.ambest.com/sales/schedulep/ http://www.naic.org/store_idp_sched_p.htm http://www.casact.org/dare/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse_lev3&lev1=100&lev2=240&categorylist=249

  • Give time for improvements, then Delete You need to do a lot more to make something notable than to list its seven parts. You have to explain, to a layman on the page (not here!) why the thing is notable. You also have to link to external references that explain this. Explain, in an encyclopaedic way, why this would be relevant to the person searching for that term. For the moment, you are just describing a bit of esoteria on some bit of paper in a country I may never see. At the very least explain what it is, because I don't even get that much from the article as it stands. DewiMorgan 22:07, 18 May 2007 (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.