Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary Option Robot

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. Sandstein 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Option Robot[edit]

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

Blatantly promotional, doesn't meet the notability guideline. References are either WP:PRIMARY or do not mention the subject (at all). -- Kethrus |talk to me 12:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator, it is blatantly promotional. Should have considered speedy delete under the criteria of G11. Ayub407^talk 16:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ideally, there would be a redirect to something like Automated Binary Trading Scams. There seems to be a surge in campaigns for this and other similar services with lots of planted coverage and fake review sites. There are even sites that expose one service to recommend another! It would be incredibly useful if Wikipedia could provide genuine third party coverage, but that obviously requires third party coverage to exist. At the moment, I would only trust material from well-established news outlets or sites like snopes.com with some reputation in this domain. It's obviously not Wikipedia's role to expose scams, so probably this has to be deleted due to lack of independent sources. Vesal (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vesal: I believe doing this could cause severe problems, I understand it may be a scam, but redirecting it to that without any definitive proof could be considered slanderous. -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, maybe Automated Binary Trading is a more neutral title, but this is all hypothetical since there are no independent sources to use. Vesal (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article (particularly the introduction) is written quite poorly (constant use of "they") and engages in advertising without really clarifying at points that Binary Option Robot is a product/service, and not a financial instrument or other construct. WP:Neutral point of view clearly applies here. That said, the sourcing, notability, and verifiability of the article are unimpeachable. There is grounds for significant improvement, but not deletion.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for deletion is that "references are either WP:PRIMARY or do not mention the subject (at all)." Please highlight which of these "unimpeachable" sources refute the nominator's point. Vesal (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It can be improved, deletion would only hinder it.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Delete per Kethrus.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eat me, I'm an azuki: Have you read the article, and looked at the sources? It primarily focuses on binaryoptionrobot.com, and if you see this revision (it hasn't changed much since then) it's blatantly for binaryoptionrobot.com, all they've done is clear the infobox and reword a few things. Furthermore, this isn't about "Binary Options" in general, as you can see by the title. Also, I've looked for sources by doing quite a bit of searching, there aren't many - so I've come to the conclusion it can't be improved much because the sources just aren't there. -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose until better can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as presumably a copyvio. may not be promotional for a specific firm, but clearly copied from another source: "We have found this brokers that robots usually recommend for trading: Banc De Binary, CherryTrade, Option FM, Exbino, Bloombex Options, GOptions, Porter Finance, Tradorax, Interactive Option, No1Options, RBOptions and IQoption." (I presume "this" was meant as "these" but I can not tell if the error was in the copying or in the original. There are similar grammar errors elsewhere, such as the final sentence.) DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 21 October 2015 (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.