Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stock market bottom

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 merge to Market trend . MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stock market bottom

Topic of article is local minima of stock market indicators. Content is generally a haphazard recapitulation of market trend, technical analysis, and related articles. The fundamental problem here is the topic scope. Although entirely organized as bullet points, there is little conceptual organization. It is anecdotal and howto. References are provided to examples, but never to authoritative sources such as a textbook.

The article is not orphaned, but a quick look at backlinks turns up capitulation (surrender) which clearly doesn't belong. Many other backlinks exist solely in See Also sections. The term is not used commonly enough to integrate this article with others on investing and economics.

Article has been marked as OR for its six-month life. No substantial material has been added except by the original author. This is likely because the scope is unclear. Analytical concepts and historical facts should go into articles on analysis and history. Local minima are just a fact of any non-monotonic graph (which economic graphs, quite unfortunately, all are). Thus the topic subsumes all market analysis—and not only of stocks. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I had initially marked this article as being possibly OR back in October and posted my concerns to WP:ORN (now archived here). While I'm not up to date on what's in the article, and absolutely not a specialist in economics (which is why I'd marked it as {{expert-subject}} for economics), I do believe this article is seriously concerning. However, I'm not sure if deletion rather than reduction/rewriting into a basic definition is appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere, or delete if all the material is already covered. I spent some time reading technical analysis articles and books last year, and I've never seen bottoms covered separately from tops; they're intrinsically linked concepts, mirror images of each other. The concept of a bottom or top is notable, because the primary point of technical analysis is to try to identify these when they occur. But I don't think they're notable independently of each other. JulesH (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand the OR concerns involved with the article. Any chance of spelling them out in more detail? JulesH (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The OR concern is simply that the article cites anecdotal advice pages and raw data, but not authoritative sources or any article of pure theory. The intent does appear to be pure theory, however. To extract overarching theory or connect ideas which aren't connected in an article (even if the individual ideas are explained) is synthesis and hence OR.
  - Also, as you said, tops and bottoms relate similarly to technical analysis. But more importantly, tops and bottoms aren't intrinsically linked to technical analysis in particular. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't look like OR to me. Encyclopedic topic, neutral tone. Could do with some re-ordering and re-writing, but that is not grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Market trend where the term is already mentioned, albeit briefly. This is just a simple technical term, and an easily understood one at that, not part of an esoteric theoretical construct, as this article would seem to be promoting. Some of the lead, (up to the Baron Rothschild quote but minus the pompous first sentence) could usefully be merged in to the Market trend article. Most of the rest is written as a "how to" guide and fails WP:NOTHOWTO, not appropriate material and should be deleted. SpinningSpark 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Spinning, who has done more research and holds a better grasp than I do, but agree with above commenters that it looks too much like OR, and could be merged per Spinning. ThuranX (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2009 (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.