Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Alternatives


 * 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, socks discounted.  Sandstein  17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Alternatives

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

CLOSING ADMIN: Vote stacking here, see Suspected sock puppets/MatthiasKnab — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Very unencylopedic article that seems to serve only to host spam links. Contested prod. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

REJECTED - Alternative Alternatives are an important concept, the article is starting to evolve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgewiz (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC) — Hedgewiz (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong delete. Article presents subject as a new term for a class of investments with no sources clearly cited to back up use of the term. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it was me that Prod'd it as it looked like advertising attempt for the one firm linked at the time . To be fair to the IP that's recently added links they do seem to be trying to reference it. But even the Mercer article that uses article name puts it in quotes, implying its not a commonly used or defined term, eg its a non notable WP:NEOLOGISM.-Hunting dog (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOT, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM and possibly . Possible WP:OWN and WP:COI violations. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:OWN is never reason to delete an article. WP:OWN is strictly about contributor behavior, not article content.  Conflicts of interest can obviously lead to article content issues, but WP:COI specifically states that they are "not a reason to delete an article".  I do think this article has issues which might warrant its deletion (as you imply with those other links), but I think you're painting with a bit too broad a brush.  Just some (hopefully) constructive criticism; nothing personal.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I completely know this. I was going to mention that the article violated WP:OWN and WP:COI, but I didn't i'm just making clear that I know that. Neither of them, however, helps an article's case for keeping and I was pointing them out as problems. I somehow misssed that I submitted it without clearly stating that I was grouping those with the other four and as such i've changed my wording. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 18:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait guys, this has some relevance now. Has Hunter Dog read http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/investment/docs/other_docs/trends_en.pdf page 73? With the United States Patent and Trademark Office having granted a word mark for a first use in 20070101, "alternative alternatives" is not a neologism but a categorisation for institutional investors seeking diversification and uncorrelated returns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.7.21 (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC) — 84.154.7.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - you don't need to convince me specifically, this is up for community discussion. Anyway I've looked through the references that have been added.  Although they mention the term they generally do it in inverted commas eg. 'alternative' alternatives. Alongside other phrases like 'new' alternatives.  I still think that is failing under WP:NEOLOGISM which says To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. The references given also say things like "We have called these and other similarly new and/or complex vehicles the 'alternative alternatives'." which doesn't imply its already a clearly defined term.  I also think that its wandering in to WP:Original Research by synthesising snippets of information from primary sources. -Hunting dog (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

KEEP - article is evolving and will continue to do so The article is well sourced and the concept is relevant. For those who are not familiar with CAIA, that is the CFA for Alternatives (Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst). The CAIA survey on alternative alternatives from May 2008 is confirming the "alternative alternatives" concept. We will see this article evolve nicely - as the alternative alternatives, which are a frontier concept. Oh, "frontier investing" is another investment concept missing on Wikipedia (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=TxG&q=%22frontier+investing%22&btnG=Search&lr=) (just kidding ;.) MatthiasKnab (talk) — MatthiasKnab (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Son once again the FT, IPE.com, Opalesque.com, Mercer, KPMG, CAIA etc. and actually with them already hundreds of institutional investors are following the alternative alternatives concept. Why is the concept important? See the London Times: "With the property market collapsing and commodities at extreme levels, is there anywhere left to make money?
 * Keep article The issue here is that non-experts try to shoot down others who collaborated to add value and content to Wikipedia. But maybe such articles need to be listed in http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/Main_Page instead, where the understanding is there. But not adding such articles on Wikipedia would be wrong too, as this discussion shows how necessary it is to share the concept of alternative alternatives. See here from this FT article: "Many institutional investors will allocate 10-15 per cent of their total portfolio to alternative investments within the next decade," says Nick Griffin, a partner at KPMG. "US endowments have led the way, but UK pension funds are moving in the same direction, albeit more slowly." The range of alternative investments is also expanding. Mr Griffin includes infrastructure and natural resources in the mix; others talk about "alternative alternatives" - forestry, art and even wine. And these investment options are no longer the preserve of institutions. Retail investors are getting in on the act too. "It's getting hard to tell the difference between institutional and retail investors," says Greg Ehret, a senior managing director at State Street Global Advisors.  Who will succeed in this new paradigm? The received wisdom is that a barbell structure will emerge with large global firms at one end and small lean boutiques with specialist skills at the other. But it isn't quite that simple....http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?sortBy=gadatearticle&queryText=hedge+fund&y=4&aje=true&ct=0&id=070409000580&x=13  I also believe that people who say stuff like "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. It does nothing but promote some entity" - are they actually looking at this article? Hedgewiz (talk)

Many advisers have long recommended clients interested in art, fine wine and collectables put a token part of their portfolio in these areas. However, professionals and private investors are increasingly seeing the potential in alternative assets.

City “superwoman” Nicola Horlick plans to let clients invest in music rights in the belief the sector will beat the downturn, while Clem Chambers, chief executive of stocks and shares site ADVFN.com, has sold out of equities and into collectable coins.

Gary West of Port Funds, which runs the Wealth and Fine Wine fund, a fund of funds for investment-grade vintages, said: “We're in a bear market and the traditional equity funds which have always taken the core in any portfolio don’t have the right to have that place anymore.

“Alternatives are no longer the abstract 1%-2% of a portfolio; they’re fundamental — into the realms of a 20%-30% split across a mixture of non-correlated alternatives.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/investment/article4321599.ece The FT write about an Guitar Fund, being pitched to investors by Anchorage Capital, a London boutique investment bank, aims to profit mainly by buying electric guitars and classical guitars, plus mandolins, banjos and amplifiers. The fund is the latest in a series of non-traditional investments known as alternative alternatives, sold on the basis that their performance is not linked to stock and bond markets. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/77d8e68c-f7b1-11dc-ac40-000077b07658.html Hedgewiz (talk) — Hedgewiz (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Neutral: The article obviously has some serious quality problems (grammar, organization, markup, style), but it doesn't appear unsalvageable.  Some serious copy-editing could fix it up.  It seems like some legitimate sources have been added.  Does not seem like typical spam; the initial version had no external references at all, and the current links appear varied (i.e., not promoting anything specific).  I'm somewhat concerned that  and  might be the same person, but perhaps that person didn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia accounts.  In my book, WP:SPA violations alone don't automatically mean all contributed articles must be deleted.  I'm most concerned with the actual subject matter.  If the term is so new that it's not well-defined, that suggests it might be too new for an encyclopedia article.  I also find most of the cited usage is casual mention of the idea, not a formal treatment or study of the concept.  Assuming it is well-defined, is there enough for a full article?  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Perhaps the concept should be merged into some more general article.  Ultimately, I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, which is why I can't come down firmly one way or the other.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Reason (mentioned on author's talk page) but I forgot to list here, that I thought it was initially a clear spamming 'attempt' is that most of initial text is identical to that suggested by Special:Contributions/Opalesque which was refused at Articles_for_creation/2008-07-22.  The Opalesque link shouldn't actually be used at all as a ref on this article as none of the content related to this subject is visible without payment.   I'm sure the evolution of this type of investment could be mentioned as a section in Alternative investment, but this term doesn't seem well enough defined for a stand alone article. -Hunting dog (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Established term: Alternative Alternatives are discussed since 2005 (I read the references source: "Already in 2005, the INVESCO and FRCs European Institutional Asset Management Survey noted (page 16) that alternative alternatives are the fastest growing asset class among Continental Europe's institutional investors"). IMO the term fully qualifies for an encyclopedic entry. I also checked the Opalsque link mentioned by Hunting dog http://www.opalesque.com/index.php?act=archiveA2&formsearchorder=category - it is the most encompassing list of such investment options I have seen on the web. It adds value as "list of alternative alternative investment options" and should be kept. Endangeredspecies (talk) — Endangeredspecies (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: This is not a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy.  Outcome depends on the quality of the points raised, not the quantity.  So far, the only arguments in favor have come from, , and .  To date, those accounts have only been used to promote this article.  In particular, the last has only made one edit -- to this discussion.  This suggests (but does not prove) all three accounts are under the control of a single person or group.  Said singular edit was made after the concern about single-purpose accounts was raised in this discussion, so ignorance is no longer an excuse.  Parties involved in this discussion should read the Wikipedia policy "Sock puppetry", if they have not already done so.  I will be reporting this .  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOT, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM indeed. Channel &reg;    23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Channel R. Edward321 (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.