Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basis Instrument Contract

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 speedy deleted by Orangemike as blatant advertising (CSD G11). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basis Instrument Contract

Self-promotion of theory which has received little if any independent notice. Also listed under AfD: BICs Markets and BICs 4 Derivatives. Rcawsey (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per G11 Cheers Imperat§ r^(Talk) 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant advertising: spam promoting somebody's patented investment scheme. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the Discussion page of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Basis_Instrument_Contract:

All efforts have been to properly source and reference this article. If any portion is found objectionable, please simply state your concern in a polite and substantive manner and the issue will be addressed. The author appreciates that the concept is not widely known and arouse suspicion but please notice that credibility of the material is independently sourced and properly referenced using the WIPO website at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2003107137. the World Intellectual Property Organization is the most authoritative body in the world on intellectual property matters. A review of the International Preliminary Examination report issued Oct 1, 2004 in the documents tab associated with the patent publication WO2003107137 show that all 273 claims made in the application are found admissible as New, involve an Inventive Step and are Industrially Applicable.

It is not simply an attempt at self promotion. In view of the present economic crisis, its content is notable importance.

AS SUCH THERE IS SIMPLY NO OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR DELETION.

Note further that under Wikipedia rules on citing oneself in No original research at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, it is stated: "Citing oneself

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."

This article reflects results published in WIPO publication WO2003107137 with the highest level of reliability opinion provided.

Bics (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Obvious PR and no notability established via third-party sources at all. §FreeRangeFrog 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"again do not delete" How do you guys define notability? Even the nber of google hits is respectable. The question is: is it content an encyclopedia user would trust? a WIPO establishes more credibility than 99% of what is on wikipedia now. The answer is yes, of course. What type of bias do you guys have? Bics (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" is defined at WP:N. Basically, it means "has coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the originator of the concept". WIPO accepting a patent application on a topic does not mean it is notable, as they are only concerned whether the patent is legally sound: technical merit is not an issue. Patents are therefore considered self-published and not reliable sources for this purpose. JulesH (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 26 non-wikipedia ghits, most of which are trivial mentions and the only one approaching the necessary level of detail is finance.mapsofworld.com/finance-theory/concepts/basis-instrument-contract.html (not linked because the site's blacklisted for some reason), which is still nowhere near reliable. No google news hits. Only one google books hit, which is a self-published book and therefore not a reliable source. There is no evidence that this concept is in use in any significant manner within the investment community, or that it is considered important by economists. JulesH (talk) 20:18, 13 February 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.