Deletion of January 2008 stock market volatility

Comment: what exactly is '''the event?''' The article doesn't say, and it has never been clear.  Was it the stock market action of January 21?  That was essentially reversed the next day.  Was it a '''stock market crash?''' Absolutely not, since there was no crash.  Was it the stock market action of the week ending January 25?  Why that period?  Was it the entire month of January?  Why?  The article arose pushing the idea that there was a crash - which was pretty silly when the largest stock market (the US) was closed.  Then the article was renamed January 2008 Downturn, but that was pretty silly when the market ended up for the week.  The article has been drawn out appearently hoping that something would happen to justify its existence.  But nothing has. Most of the froth quoted above are pretty selectively chosen stats, what happened to all the ups that happened that week? We should not be writing market commentary (especially so when it turns out to be so wrong!), we should not be arguing that something might happen in the future to make this time period notable (see ).  We're not equipped to write news stories on the stock market.  As the article stands now it really doesn't make any sense.  Anybody who wants to keep it should be able to say what it is (or was) about. This may turn out to be the most interesting month in the stock market this year, or even in the last 2 years, but probably not.  Do we really want to have articles on market commentary of one month every year
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:crystal)

Comment: I'm undecided as to whether to support this article or not. But I do have a problem with the title. So if the so-called volatility continues into February, will a separate article be created called "February 2008 stock market volatility"? Yet at the same time, if we call it just "2008 Stock Market Volatility" that violates  in presuming in advance that it'll continue all year. In any event, if this is kept I'd prefer a different title be given to it if possible to avoid this sort of jackpot. I might support the article being centered around the Jan. 21 date except that it is not getting the same sort of "Black Monday" branding that previous downturns have had. In fact most people have already forgotten about it and it just happened 2 weeks ago
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)