Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero loss trading
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 Speedily deleted as blatant advertising promoting an investment scheme. Also an unreferenced, unwikified, promotional essay with how-to like elements. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Zero loss trading
This article is not very encyclopedic, more an opinion piece on an investment strategy. Mblumber (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a copyvio, definitely a personal essay. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unsourced snake-oil and testament to how some people will believe anything if it involves a computer. WillOakland (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G11- Spam. If it were a copyvio, it probably would have been picked up by CorenSearchBot. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - There is no place for how-to guides, especially poor ones. TN‑X-Man 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure it qualifies as spam, since it doesn't advocate a specific product or service. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply It's written like an advert, and therefore qualifies as spam. It appears that the only purpose of the article is to promote or advertise this method of trading. Either way, it doesn't matter, as it's encyclopaedic and poorly sourced, so it should be deleted. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 03:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure it qualifies as spam, since it doesn't advocate a specific product or service. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G11 - looks like an ads to me —Chris! ct 04:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, essentially a how-to essay (at least, it tries to be...), contravening WP:NOR. No prejudice to speedy delete: G11 as indicated above due to sneaky promotional tone of article. --Kinu t/c 05:48, 6 June 2008 (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.
