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 keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Financial management[edit]

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

Very little information and poorly written - most of the edits have been reverted; almost certainly covered in other articles in the same area. Mato (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing worth keeping here. Perhaps redirect to Corporate finance.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree entirely with the nominator's assessment of the article as it was at the time of the nomination. However, it had been a disambiguation page which was recently hijacked to be converted to this very poor article. I have restored the disambiguation page, and I see no reason for not keeping it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and probably protect the useful disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as disambiguation page. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is a stub (WP:STUB) but the caption for the page "financial management" should not be lost and the page should be developed as a notable (WP:N) subject.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as disambiguation page. Though I originally created this page based on a distinguishing point between the two, I no longer recall the importance. Someone with more knowledge of finance needs to review these concepts and confirm if there is any real need to have a disambiguation page in the first place.mmortal03 (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my feeling is that the disambig page is probably not very useful, but it does no harm and may be of some use to someone, so we may as well keep it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment - as the second entry by JamesBWatson points out, I failed to see that I had nominated a vandalised version of the page for deletion and, as the page stands after reversions, I would agree that it is a Keep. I'm not entirely sure but, per my comments, this probably satisfies the conditions for a speedy keep? Mato (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2011 (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.