Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relative price strength
- 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 no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relative price strength[edit]
- Relative price strength (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Originally {{prod}}ed as a WP:NEO, prod removed by creator and only editor. Even if it's not a neologism, there's nothing more that could be said than what's there, so it should be redirected to a (new) section of Stock valuation or some similar article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for this term returns over twenty-thousand hits as of June 3, 2007. While the term was first penned by William O'Neil of Investors Business Daily, it has since become relatively widespread terminology in market discussions. I do not have a problem with it being merged but I think a valid point could be made to keep it as there are numerous websites that refer to this term outside of bill o'neil. Chantoke 03:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because its a common stock concept that shouldn't be ignored. Chantoke 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it is a WP:POV fork from Beta coefficient which is the common stock concept that this unreferenced article is trying to emulate. --Gavin Collins 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Article is a stub, but no compelling reason to delete.--Gregalton 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Counting up Google hits isn't gonna solve anything. Make sure those websites that you might reference here (or better yet, in the article) are reliable. (→zelzany - fish) 23:47, 16 June 2007 (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.