Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Option on the product of two asset prices

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. --Core desat 01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Option on the product of two asset prices[edit]

Reads like an essay. Recreation of deleted article, contested prod. John 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G4.--Edtropolis 19:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear repost doesn't apply to speedy, and I know it doesn't apply to prods. Morgan Wick 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unattributed original research, and arguably indiscriminate information. Yechiel Man 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a long winded way of saying "thanks for your money, sucker" ~ Infrangible 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author can provide reliable sources to show this is not pure WP:OR. -- Kesh 02:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article is neither original research nor indiscriminate information. This is a product that is widespread in the investment banking world and numerous users would want documentation. The fact that most of you don't have a clue about derivative products does not mean that the thousands of people that work in the City of London would not be interested in this article. --Tedblack 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep an article. Please provide reliable sources in the article which back up its content. If this is as widespread as you claim, they should be easy to find. -- Kesh 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:USEFUL seems more appropriate. Morgan Wick 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Six of one, half a dozen of the other. :) I find they both stem from the same desire. -- Kesh 18:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only reason for which there are no sources is because most sources are proprietary and cannot be published. The author has over fifteen years experience in this. This article will prove very useful to practitioners in the City of London.--Tedblack 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In other words, you admit that there are no reliable sources you can cite so we can read about it ourselves? Your point boils down to "it's useful", which is not a valid reason to keep an article on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pending rewrite in encyclopedic terms. And just for reference, comparing two derivatives of assets usually is done by converting both derivatives to cash equivalents using Black-Scholes model. It appears that this is just an analytic solution of the Black-Scholes p.d.e. for European style options (fixed sale date). If this is different, it needs a reliable source to explain how it is different and what it's impact is. --Tbeatty 04:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good analysis. Basically it is complete original research then; I should perhaps have been bold and redeleted and salted it, but I'm glad to have had a consensus emerge. --John 04:59, 15 June 2007 (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.