Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep discount broker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Further discussions and comments sould be posted on the article's talk page. VoL†ro/\/Force 02:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deep discount broker
Not really sure if this belongs on Wikipedia, seems like a dictionary definition. Leaning more towards delete, but a transwiki to Wiktionary is also a possibility Rackabello 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- We should delete this, it lacks sufficient context to establish what it is actually about. Cruftbane 21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: No context. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Perhaps it has no context because it's not a real term? I googled and couldn't find the expression except in spam sites....no major news source uses the term (wall street journal, forbes, NY Times, cnn, financial times, etc). There may be a real notable sub-class of business out there, but if so there's probably a different name (and an article already) for it. If it were a real financial term or classification of stockbroker these sources would be using the word.Wikidemo 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to the not-much-better discount brokerage. The term is out there but the boundaries between the two are subjective. (Oh, and deep discount broker yields 684 HITS for me vs. 24,800 for deep discount brokerage.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good find. Maybe we should keep after all and look for some sources and info, if it's really a distinct term and class of business. I could swear I've heard it somewhere too. However, the fact that the best source found to date is a 1994 article, albeit in the New York Times, suggests the term isn't in general use and as you say is subjective. If it were an obscure field of business, a single NY Times reference plus a few others would be enough to sustain an article. As a term that if real would apply to a several billion dollar a year industry, if that's all there is then perhaps it's just not worth discussing in an article.Wikidemo 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to close this as no consensus per Wikidemo's above comment. VoL†ro/\/Force 02:38, 15 October 2007 (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.
