Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bottom (technical analysis)

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 redirect to Chart patterns. Missvain (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom (technical analysis)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No references, and tagged since 2009 as having no references. With no references, does not satisfy general notability because no reliable sources are listed that report significant coverage.

See also Top (technical analysis), which is also unreferenced. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's whether such sources exist, so that a stub can be expanded, not whether they are cited. What, if anything at all, did you do to find out whether sources exist? Because actual research leads to Richard W. Schabacker's original 1932 work Technical Analysis and Stock Market Profits which has all of the terminology that people use today, including numerous books on the subject from a For Dummies one upwards, such as the "Head and Shoulders" top/bottom on pages 42 to 64 and the "Rounding Top" a.k.a. "Common Turn" on pages 67 to 74. And Schabacker wasn't just some nobody making stuff up. Xe was the editor of Forbes. All of this turns up with even a modicum of research, as the modern serious sources directly credit and cite Schabacker. The real problem here is that many, but not all, chart patterns exist in both "top" and "bottom" forms, and the real way to approach this would have been to write about the patterns with Schabacker in hand, not go after the words. Uncle G (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Uncle G with regards to notability, but articles that completely lack sources, reliable or otherwise, are a hygiene problem for Wikipedia, because editors have to waste time figuring out if the are OR. There's not really a WP:BEFORE problem with this listing, because you have to know a bit about this kind of topic to know where to look for references. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: If nobody is willing to put in the effort to furnish this article with references, would making it a redirect to chart patterns be a good idea? — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to chart patterns without any prejudice against a well sourced article taking the redirect’s place as and when it can be written. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:28, 4 May 2021 (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.