Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accumulator (structured product)

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. Any re-creation must have sources. Cool Hand Luke 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulator (structured product)

Prod contested by original contributor without improvement. The article appears to be original research and is not supported by reliable sources. Evb-wiki (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance. --Stormie (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely NOT a main-stream financial product, not supported by the single source (which is a single page). Besides the lack of verifiable sources, and the likely lack of notability, the article suffers from a lack of specificity - I really can't tell exactly what the article is talking about. But - just guessing - it looks like a fairly exotic option combination being sold as a get-rich-quick scheme. If it could explain exactly what the combination is, and could explain the costs (there are no free-lunches in finance), then I might say "Weak Keep." But at best it needs a whole lot of work. Smallbones (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern from the source is "because more premium is earned by selling two puts" whereas the article talks about a series of daily up-and-out forwards. In all likelihood, if this type of thing isn't clearly explained, we will be misleading our readers. Smallbones (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete People will trade just about anything. This sounds like just a minor variant of a knock-out option. It should be merged with Barrier option. Ronnotel (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Lacking in evidence of notability. Don't believe this fits the bill. Good sources required; if none, this must go. Merge?--Samiharris 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until sources are found. AnteaterZot 23:55, 3 December 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.