Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Day Trade for a Living

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to Day Trade for a Living

[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)

Paid coverage; no independent reviews of this book found. Fails WP:NBOOK. US-Verified (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks for the ping, Wikipedia:Notability (books) requires tow independent sources which Investopedia and Business Insider are not paid. Singularitywiki (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Singularitywiki - see Reliable sources/Perennial sources (a.k.a. "WP:RSP" -- it's a useful list especially when working with marginally notable articles may rely on iffier sources. Investopedia is listed as a bad source; it even gets its own Wikipedia shortcut: WP:INVESTOPEDIA.

I've seen Business Insider on my newsfeed and I've wondered about it. For this AfC, I started researching its reliability. Business Insider is listed at WP:RSP as "Insider" (the parent company), not "Business Insider"; it also gets its own shortcut: WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. It's been the subject of 2 lengthy RfCs which closed with no consensus:

and 11 other discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard - possibly a record. It's generally viewed as iffy and inconsistent.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the author's bio is listed at Articles for deletion/Andrew Aziz

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. Skynxnex (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. See table below. —siro χ o 09:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:siroxo
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
BI "license to print money"	interview with author	~ WP:BI	doesn't even mention this book, just links to amazon	✘ No
bi books		~	~ barebones, most significant note is "Aziz explains how day trading works, how to choose stocks, how to choose a day trading platform, and more." rest is less detailed repetition	~ Partial
investopedia classes			doesn't mention book	✘ No
yahoo gobankingrates		gobankingrates	small amount of data about ratings and rankings of book	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per siroxo's detailed source analysis above. I think that it is clear that the referencing except Insider are clearly not SIGCOV. For Business Insider, whether it is a WP:RS in this circumstance is complicated- the RSP section notes that There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: Insider (culture). This is a case that falls under finance instead of culture sections, so the reliability is iffy (I will disclaim that in the latest RfC a year ago, which is specifically for news reporting, I voted option 1/2). Moreover, I do no think that it meets SIGCOV per GNG or constitute as a full-length review per WP:NBOOK#1, as the content is very short at 130 words and part of a listicle. Overall, because there are reliability and SIGCOV concerns with Insider, the current sourcing very weak, even if one generously assumes it counts, that is still only one source. Unfortunately, my search on Google and other reviewing websites (Kirkus, PW, and Booklist) failed to find suitable sources and only unreliable ones like this. As other NBOOK criteria are also not met, I am at a delete. VickKiang (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like VickKiang, I checked the usual places, found nothing. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (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.