Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IShares DJ Euro Stoxx 50

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. Stoxx 50 is notable, no indication that this fund meets the guidelines Ged UK 19:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IShares DJ Euro Stoxx 50[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant exchange traded fund with significant global daily volume and there is an exchange fund wikipedia category that without this entry would be incomplete--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - iShares is notable. "DJ Euro Stoxx 50," independantly, is not. Having a category incomplete is not a reason for keeping an article. This entry is already listed on the List of exchange-traded funds; an full article does not need to be dedicated to this fund for the list to remain complete. Neelix (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What "DJ Euro Stoxx 50" represents is the 50 most significant stock in the EU zone (all of which, I am sure, have their own Wiki entries), notable as they move markets. Would agree that the article should be fleshed out to describe criteria for inclusion in the list, the list itself (with a update link), weighting and so on but as is this article should stand albeit that it could be improved upon to share more information.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external sources, nothing to show that it has been discussed by reliable sources. Nothing to show notability. LK (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32 02:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for What?: I guess I'd have to ask what specific features or events related to it make it notable? That is, if you have articles on ETF's and you have articles on the companies and the underlying securities, why single out this fund for its own article? If I start my own business that trades these stocks and the only coverage is my ads does that make my business notable by association with notable products? What about my own company that makes me-too widgets, even if widgets are notable or the first widget was notable is my company notable too? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty obviously fails notability --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dow Jones Euro Stoxx 50 is obviously notable and worth an article, but let's be careful not confuse the specific fund under discussion here with the index itself. Barnabypage (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.