Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROFIT (second nomination)

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 of the debate was Redirect to Profit.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROFIT

Delete. This article underwent a prior AfD, but it was invalid -- The recreated material CSD is not valid for pages deleted by {{prod}}. That said, this article is spam. There's no claim to notability, and the company's website has no Alexa rank. lowercase 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and protect against recreation Spam, non-notable, etc. -- Kicking222 17:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment All the external references in [1] would also have to be deleted. They all refer to software used in the industry, and this website has as much or more useful content than most others. So it is not clear how discrimination will be avoided here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.189.188.114 (talk • contribs) .
• Weak Delete Previous unsigned comment has a point about links in the Technical Analysis Software (Finance) article. Maybe someone from THAT article created a bunch of wanted pages and others obliged.
• If deleted, recreate as redirect to Profit. -- saberwyn 00:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete software should be easy to find google hits for. A search for all of "PROFIT", "Tradewiz", and "technical analysis" found 11 unique google hits. Two of these 11 were on the company's site. That site does not have enough traffic for Siteadvisor to have bothered testing whether it is a good or spammy site. None of the remainders are reliable sources. In addition to a lack of claim to notability, this is clearly not notable. GRBerry 00:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Just a wikipedia user comment. I was reading your text about technical analysis recently and ended up here. It seems hard to me to define a cut off criteria for a product to be kept or dropped from the pages without risking some appearance of favoritism. I can understand the idea of listing the most popular or a standard, but once other competitors are included, where the acceptability line is crossed can, at times, become fuzzy. I wonder, as a lay person, even about the legality (loosely applied) of such “endorsements” vs. rejections, on a public resource like wikipedia.

In my mind, either all but the “standard” are removed or simple references to available products are allowed to stay. As long as they are not long advertisements, with lists of features and blatant spamming language. If anybody is interested, they can always go and look for more information at the vendor's site.

I realize it’s a thin line between being an encyclopedia and a vendors catalog; still, coming to think of it, having a list of available software associated with a topic is a good complementary service to readers. And standards are usually expensive, so not all users are looking for them.

Again, just some food for though...Keep up the good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.208.110.77 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete per nom. --Peta 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I created the article. I have used several of the programs that do have their entries and found this to be the best. The website contains more content than several others that have entries. For consistency, either keep this or delete all others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chartist07 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment User has 7 edits, all PROFIT related. lowercase 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Yes. My first entry, being a trader and technical analyst. Perhaps my last, given how my contribution was welcomed.

• 1. Delete
  2. ???
  3. PROFIT!  Grue  18:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry about the faulty speedy (by me), but I still think this article be deleted, and then redirect to Profit per above. Petros471 16:42, 2 June 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.