Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/S&P CNX Nifty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP (6 keep/5 delete). DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:49, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S&P CNX Nifty

KEEP. There is too little info available regarding this key Indian stock market index (National Stock Exchange/ NSE). The index is called Nifty. Please, please, somebody also add the ticker symbol to look up quotations for this index, eg via Yahoo finance (to give an example, the ticker symbol for the BSE Sensex index is ^BSESN).

(Someone else): This article is nothing but gibberish. It is just a long list of companies, with no punctuation whatsoever; it looks like a business ticker.

Red dwarf

  • It is the leading stock index of large-cap stocks the National Stock Exchange of India. [1] Keep/cleanup/expand. Samaritan 15:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless is edited into sense soon, I don't think anyone but the original author has a clue what his point of posting this was.. Goldom 15:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is obviously cut-and-pasted from somewhere, though I doubt a list like this could be considered a copyvio. As it stands, there's no article here. 23skidoo 15:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge into National Stock Exchange of India. Even if you solved the low-level issue of formatting the text better, the article doesn't say anything beyond just a list. I've stuck a stub tag on it, in the hopes that somebody will come along and improve the article before the voting is over (in which case I'll be happy to change my vote), but in the current state, I don't see anything worth keeping. BTW, the same applies to CNX Nifty Junior --RoySmith 16:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Based on recent improvements to the article, I'm now happy to change my vote. Now somebody should fix up NASDAQ-100 to bring it up to the quality of this article :-) --RoySmith 14:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep even if it's just a list. Objective lists of prominent companies are encyclopedic. Kappa 16:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • But there needs to be context for such a list and, as it stands presently, there appears to be none. 23skidoo 19:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete S&P CNX Nifty is my favourite S&P CNX. It's way better than the S&P CNX Groovy, the S&P CNX Neato, and the S&P CNX Peachy Keen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've turned it into a readable chart now. It could probably use more background information, but at least it makes sense now. I hope I did the "series" and "ISIN" sections right; it was hard to read in the original layout. -R. fiend 19:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The formatting is certainly better, but it's still not an encyclopedia article. If somebody who knows about this stuff could add a paragraph or two describing the history of the index, what criteria is used to put companies on the list, it's significance, or anything else interesting about it, then I think it would be worth keeping. --RoySmith 19:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In that case, I suggest a move to List of companies on the S&P CNX Nifty or something. There is certainly a precedent for lists, and many (most?) are much less useful than this. -R. fiend 19:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to follow the precedent set by all other articles in Category:Stock market indices. Unless those should all be changed, I think that this is fine. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:02, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Nice job on the formatting, thank you. Kappa 22:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this seems fine now. Compared to other stock index articles like NASDAQ-100, it has even more information. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. That list is not an encyclopedia article, and probably never will be. Please don't put that list on National Stock Exchange of India, it would just move the problem from one article to the other. If someone has something to say about this, they can do so in National Stock Exchange of India without the lenghty list. JoaoRicardo 23:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who's going to update it every time a new company comes onto the exchange?. RickK 23:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC) After reading DDG's comments below, it's clear that I misunderstood this article, and I'm going to vote neutral here. RickK 23:51, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • RickK, I think that you and several other people here are making a common mistake; you are confusing an index with an exchange. This is not a list of every company that trades on the exchange, but rather a list of the constituents of a very specific index of the 50 highest valued commodoties on the exchange. The list of stocks will never exceed 50, and the list should change no more than once a quarter. This is a highly regulated list, and is quite valuable. You are comparing this list to the NYSE, where the more appropriate comparison is the Dow Jones Industrial Average. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:23, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a lengthy list that will need constant updating. Not very useful or practical in the long term, when a mention in National Stock Exchange of India could do better. Megan1967 00:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • A quick googling reveals their webpage, and looking at their policies shows that their list of constituents changes once every quarter [2]. These updates are regularly scheduled. The list can never grow beyond 50, which is not that lengthy, expecially when compared to other indices. Also, index length should not be a criteria. The Russell 3000 has 3000 symbols, and is invaluable for evaluating the performance of small-cap stocks. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Indexes like these don't change terribly often. I don't see anyone taking issue with the "constant need" to update the Dow Jones Industrial Average for example. The NASDAQ-100 is a longer list without much of an article. Shoudl that be deleted? -R. fiend 01:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. All indexes get updated about once a quarter, and it's big news when it happens, so the fact that the content changes should have nothing to do with whether or not the topic is notable or not. The list is not that lengthy, especially when compared to NASDAQ-100 or Russell 2000, both of which are indisputably encyclopedic. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you look at [3], you'll find twenty-some-odd stock indicies listed, so there certainly seems to be precedent that they are encyclopedic. I think the original complaint about this article was not so much the topic, but the quality of the content, which is no longer an issue after several people have jumped in and fixed this up. It's worth noting that most of the articles include the list of companies, with the notable exception of the Wilshire 5000 , where such a list would be impractical to keep up to date --18:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me now, keep. --fvw* 22:04, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.