Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributed liquidity

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. Sandstein 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed liquidity

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be original research, basically only written about by its inventor - there's one short newspaper treatment, which appears to constitute the entirety of notice that the outside world has taken of the idea so far. (The "movement" and its website is, again, the originator) At best, WP:TOOSOON. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (copied from article talk page) @Elmidae: I can provide other sources that speak about Distributed Liquidity. I know it's a new theme, but it's important to know. The book "La buona moneta" by Prof. Pierangelo Dacrema, reserves a full paragraph to this theory. Is it enough for you? NuandaLM (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@NuandaLM: Importance is assessed on Wikipedia by how much sources unconnected with a given topic have seen fit to say about it - i.e., how much independent coverage is available. For scientific findings or theories, that means that a sufficient number of other researchers must have taken up and/or discussed the item, and/or that the non-scientific press must have covered it. Both of these seem to be lacking for Distributed liquidity at the moment. A discussion in a book is the kind of coverage that can usefully contribute to the threshold. But it won't suffice on its own - we would need a number of these. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to raise awareness for or popularize something - we merely document what people are already writing about. It may just be WP:TOOSOON for this topic to be on Wikipedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of things are important but also original research, which we don't publish. There's lots of academic journals and ArXiv that do exactly that. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I found 4 indipendent authors who wrote about Distributed Liquidity: Prof. Pierangelo Dacrema (Università della Calabria), Prof. Roberto Tamborini (University of Trento), Phd Domenico Cortese, who is ad indipendent research who write on https://www.filosofiadeldebito.it/.

Comment I found an article that also is about this term: Akter, Nahida ; Nobi, Ashadun (Jun 2018). "Investigation of the Financial Stability of S&P 500 Using Realized Volatility and Stock Returns Distribution". Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 11(2).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... no. The term is used in passing once, in the introduction, and puzzlingly out of context (actually that looks like a rote intro sentence copied from somewhere). I don't believe this is worth anything. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:03, 26 October 2019 (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.