Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Ross (trader)

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. Yanksox 03:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Ross (trader)

Financial trader; I don't see the notability here. NawlinWiki 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Traders who educate neophytes in their methods are a dime a dozen. BigHaz 01:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vanity page. Ohconfucius 01:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:BIO--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity spam for some guy with a job --Xrblsnggt 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I am not sure whether his notability justifies a place here. Anyway, a search engine test shows his name at the very top, plus a number of entries about him in the first few pages(Google) (Yahoo). This may suggest people from trading fields should know him. That's also the main reason why he is included when a disambiguation page of Joe Ross is created. However I see no entry about Joe Ross (referee) in the search, nor I know him. Should this be deleted as well (provided that Joe Ross (trader) is decided to be deleted)? --Wai Wai (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Ross (trader) could be using google bomb marketing techniques. It's in his interest for his company. At first glance, I would vote delete in an afd of Joe Ross (referee). I'll consider nominating that article Bwithh 02:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: How can we check for sure he has used search engine optimizations to get the place? But I notice there are some other websites which talks about him too (eg interviews found at Trade2Win and Moneybags etc.) Does it suggest he has some fame in trading fields? I think we need someone who is in the trading field to answer this question. By the way, did you issue an afd of Joe Ross (referee)?--Wai Wai (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The trader seems to have used search engine optimization or similar tactics to show up high on the Google and Yahoo lists, but relevant independent sources about him are hard to find. --Metropolitan90 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete looks like a promotional advertisement. There are hundreds of thousands of financial traders... --HResearcher 07:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity page, fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl 11:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. And nothing links to the article. SynergeticMaggot 11:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, ad like and possible vanity Marcus22 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. As the article stands right now, it looks like vanity, but a quick Amazon search showed that he is the author of at least 5 books about trading. That would seem noticable enough. --Kristjan Wager 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 12 books in total. 8 for futures and commodity traders, 4 for stock traders.--Wai Wai (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kristjan Wager's findings. --HResearcher 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Regarding Kristjan Wager's findings, an Amazon.com listing or an ISBN are not good proofs of notability as anyone can obtain one (even without actually having a book). Also having a book published is not an automatic guarantee of notability. Also these particular books listed on Amazon.com are all published by "Ross Trading, Inc." i.e. they are published by a company owned and operated by the author's daughter-in-law[1] (who even handles most of the company's phone calls and all the book orders by herself apparently) i.e. this is self-publishing. Bwithh 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Isn't creating this article much like using a vanity press to publish one's books? :) Dlohcierekim 15:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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.