Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Option Alpha

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 and salt. Joyous! | Talk 00:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option Alpha[edit]

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

Deleted first because of a mass advertising campaign and a user asked for restoration, but quite honestly, this new one has equal amounts of advertising and sole motivations at tgat; the sources and information are simply published and republished advertising, regardless of anything or anyone else and the "notability-acclaims" section lends nothing for actual notability and substance. WP:NOT applies since this is not suitable for this encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in the discussion with user DGG about the merits of the speedy deletion of this page. Looking at the sources, they are all sources – while you may not read them personally – that are useful resources for people interested in this niche industry, option trading. Can you please give an example of text that seems overly promotional or advertorial? Please see this similar page as a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeKing They are both in the same industry, and both pages provide very much the same information. Andyjkelly (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as promotional. (The earlier copy I speedy deleted was written by a banned sockpuppet, who has written many such articles,, which are in the process of being removed). I declined to restore it. The text for the deleted copy must have been found on one of the websites that hosts deleted articles from WP, for it is almost identical to the present submission. The promotional elements begin in the lede, which is a straight advertisement: "the top-ranked training platform offers some of the most comprehensive options trading resources in the industry including downloadable PDF guides and checklists, video training courses, live webinar workshops, weekly podcast shows, and exclusive options scanning and backtesting software." None of this is sourced, and all of it is puffery. In particular, "some of the most comprehensive" is an utterly meaningless statement, though advertisers tend to word thing that way--it's a clear give-away for the purpose of this article. None of the references are from a general newspaper of magazine,--they are all from specialized newsletters and blogs within the industry. (I advised the contributor that if they wanted to try an independent article, to first look for some better sources. Either they didn't bother, or there simply are none.) For example, the OptionsTradingIQ blog is just an unranked list. Most of of the others are worse: they are his own podcast on various platforms. Usually, when people compare their article with another in WP, the response is Yes, we have a lot of other junk also--but in this case the TradeKing article is considerably less promotional--though I am unsure about its notability also. I think even G11 would be justified for Option alpha. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I had tagged the previous version for speedy deletion and I just saw that it was recreated. The references are not what we consider reliable sources and this wouldn't really satisfy the requirements the WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Lemongirl942 and DGG. Valid points and this appears promotional in nature. -- Dane ^talk 05:30, 9 December 2016 (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.