Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrendSpider

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrendSpider

[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)

The article primarily discusses the features of the company's main product of the same name (which arguably should be the topic of the article rather than the company). The article was created by an editor who has now been blocked for advertising/promotion, and a PROD was removed by a new editor upon addition of several sources to the talk page. These sources, and pretty much all in-depth sources on the page are not independent of the subject as they all offer free trials via affiliate links (some of which need to be followed as they cleverly use redirects built into their own sites to hide this). This seems overly promotional and I have not been able to find sources suggesting a pass of WP:GNG. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of good articles about them such as this [1] and also reviews here that don't have any affiliate links--> [2], [3], [4] and [5], so it meets WP:GNG. As far as the nominators argument that the article should be about the product rather than the company, he may have a point there, but this doesn't justify a deletion. The article can easily be revised to say "Trendspider is a software" rather than it is a "company." Should others here agree to such an edit, I will be willing to make the edit myself. I actually improved this article previously and expanded by adding the RainDrops section, which in itself is notable due to its use by Nasdaq, Yahoo Finance, TheStreet and others. Additionally, there is a recent news about them they winning an award by Benzinga [6] and a lot more articles come up in Google, which I have not checked. Jaxarnolds (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources you've presented, 1 and 5 are the same, and amount to a press release. Although the article claims to be written by the editorial staff at the publication, the links in the page go through PRNewswire, a common publisher of press releases. TechBullion does in fact use an affiliate link, verifiable by clicking on the free trial offer at the bottom of the page. Source 4 (after using google translate) does not make any mention of TrendSpider at all and is about a different topic.

The only potential here is the review by Wesley Crowder on StockTradingTeacher.com, which does not appear to use an affiliate link, but presents a similar redirect scheme which indicates that it may have at one point. The review itself is highly laudatory, to the point where I question its editorial neutrality. Also striking are the use of emphasis, as well as difficult-to-source info such as the company's backstory (as well as how its described, using tropes that are common in startup stories typically used to promote companies and products), and the mention of competitors but lack of direct names (a critical review should ideally list the competitors of a product, something which affiliate-based programs tend to dislike as it draws business away). I would say that on its face that this review is highly questionable and does not appear to be even slightly neutral. ASUKITE 00:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I had provided you the wrong link for 4. And this was supposed to be 5, which is detailed review with FAQ without any affiliate links. They are corrected now. But even with removing the article that may be a press release and the one that may be an affiliate, there is still stocktradingteacher and plenty more articles in Google about them. I also believe that even if there is an affiliate link, that does not mean the review is not legit. As you can see many of these reviewers have taken time to do in-depth and genuine reviews of the software. An affiliate link is like a banner ad. These sites need to make money somehow. Even major news sites like Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC, etc have affiliate links. For example, here is another legit and detailed review [7], which compares it to its competition, but he does have an affiliate link on the bottom. Still you cannot say that out of dozens (maybe over 50) reviews that exist online, none are legit genuine reviews. The fact that it has so much coverage shows that they meet WP:GNG. So I will stick to my keep vote. I have also found additional coverage on them on some stock trading books, which is very significant, see:

The Ultimate Guide to Candlestick Chart Patterns , Moving Averages and The Ultimate Guide to Chart Patterns Jaxarnolds (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've read all the comments above and did a search of my own. I found these additional good articles and reviews barchart which is a case study, and captainaltcoin a very good review. Mommmyy (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Out of sources provided there are some that are good to meet notability, such as coin-hero.de, sourceforge.net, barchart.com. The book citations provided by Jaxarnolds are also good. Chelokabob (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2021 (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.