Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Aziz


 * 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. All the "keep" opinions are by WP:SPAs, which is not a good sign.  Sandstein  19:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Aziz

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Completely non-notable day trader/coach, fails the criteria. Kelpartt (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 3.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople,  and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity fluff piece. Non-notable, a stock broker doing his job. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He is not a stock broker. A broker is different from author or trader. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockbroker Communityknlodege (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC) — Communityknlodege (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * vanity press, but please note according to Notability (books) vanity press can meet criteria of 1 for notable books. "Exceptions do exist, such as Robert Gunther's Early Science in Oxford and Edgar Allan Poe's Tamerlane, but both of these books would be considered notable by virtue (for instance) of criterion 1." 2001:569:77FA:AF00:B54B:3A6B:6694:66A9 (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
 * "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read.
 * Books are notable (and thus kept) if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not."
 * Bestwaytoedit (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC) — Bestwaytoedit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete: Seems like a WP:PROMO piece that doesn't pass WP:GNG. -- BriefEdits (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
 * "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read.
 * Books are notable (and thus kept) if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not."
 * Bestwaytoedit (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC) — Bestwaytoedit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Article is about Notability (people) Notability (books) AUTHOR. Page was never intended to be encyclopedic article of a "day trader" or "coach". Discussions for deletion should be address toward notability of Author and book, not a "day trader" or "coach". 2001:569:77FA:AF00:B54B:3A6B:6694:66A9 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

UTC)
 * keep: of course a notable trader and author. He is an Author that has been best seller since 2015 and have over 13,500 reviews on Amazon. Based on sales rank and review his books must have been sold over 500,000 copies? How can can someone like him not to be notable? Also Forbes offices members and Entrepreneur VIP author. He is also mentioned in all reliable sources such as Business Insider and Investopedia. If someone like him is not notable, not sure who would fit really to be included in Wikipedia. Although article mentions his achievement but it doesn't read like promo or CV for WP:PROMO. According to some previous comments on this page here many people should be deleted from Wikipedia. I encourage more Admins to review this before making a decision. He is also “not” a broker or coach, he is a famous trader and author. Obviously previous comments did not search him well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.69.69.101 (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No, Amazon and its reviews do not meet criteria for WP:Author or WP:NOTBOOK but I think author and his book has more independent sources of notability for both. Communityknlodege (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC) — Communityknlodege (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep: Meets notability criteria of WP:AUTHOR.

Re-reading WP:AUTHOR:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Andrew Aziz is a well known author in the field of active day trading and psychology. See: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012C4AU10/

His books overall are well-known, accepted, and well-cited by reliable sources for WP:SNG and WP:GNG. Furthermore, "Andrew Aziz" has a complete Google Search Knowledge Panel, and many terms including him are well-searched google terms and suggested by Google. Andrew Aziz social media is "verified" in all social media: TWTR, IG, YT and FB which needs to be satisfied in several notability guidelines by independent sources of those platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Communityknlodege (talk • contribs) 05:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC) — Communityknlodege (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep: Andrew Aziz is most famous for his 2016 book "How to Day Trade for a Living", which is considered a classis in day trading. Author should meet notability criteria of WP:AUTHOR and book should meet notability criteria WP:NOTBOOKS of at least two reliable, independent sources.

Re-reading WP:NOTBOOK

A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

Example of independent reviews of books and Author:

https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/best-day-trading-books https://www.businessinsider.com/stock-market-day-trading-investing-advice-andrew-aziz-former-engineer-2019-10 https://www.investopedia.com/best-day-trading-courses-5176199 https://www.benzinga.com/money/bear-bull-traders-review https://www.tradingreviewers.com/how-to-day-trade-for-a-living-review/ https://www.basicsfortrading.com/post/how-to-day-trade-for-a-living-book-review https://daytradingz.com/best-day-trading-books/ https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/the-successful-story-of-peak-capital-trading-founder-andrew-aziz

this one seem like trivial but a review nonetheless:

https://12min.com/how-to-day-trade-for-a-living-critical%20summary%20review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:77FA:AF00:B54B:3A6B:6694:66A9 (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Criteria for notability of books are irrelevant, because the question being discussed is whether Andrew Aziz is notable, not whether one or more of his books is notable. I totally understand why to a new editor unversed in Wikipedia's ways it may seem natural that notability of a person and notability of work he has produced should be considered as the same thing, but they aren't. As for the "review" you say seems "trivial", yes it is utterly trivial, so much so that it seems a stretch to even call it a review. It is nothing remotely like the substantial coverage required for notability in Wikipedia's terms, even if it were the book, not its author, whose notability is under discussion. JBW (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the excellent point @JBW. However, I think one way of looking at is that these are often correlated in sources. Many of sources also mention the Author in a "notable way", which those independent sources can become a source of notability for Author as well, with some justification. For example Business Insider which is a rs when reviews the book, also notes the author as "world-class" and "successful trader" and coach. Bestwaytoedit (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC) — Bestwaytoedit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, of course the two are correlated, but I was just trying to help an inexperienced editor, because at present their comment is unlikely to carry much weight. For what it's worth, my personal view is that there's a good case for giving more weight than we do to coverage of books as evidence of notability of their authors, but this discussion will be assessed on the basis of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as they are, not as you or I would prefer them to be. On the other hand I do not think there's any case at all for taking into consideration such statements as that a person is "world-class" and a "successful trader", not so much because individual statements are not substantial coverage as because they are peacock wording, which convey more about the impression the writer of those expressions wishes to impress on the reader than about the person they are written about. JBW (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:Author could be these rs:
 * Keep meets WP:GNG for WP:Author and WP:NOTBOOK

WP:NOTBOOK could be these independent reviews:

Bestwaytoedit (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC) — Bestwaytoedit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. As far as sources, we've got Forbes contributor which is WP:FORBESCON material, doesn't contribute. This is a trivial mention, this is Investopedia, a questionable source per WP:RSNP and is a thinly-veiled advertisement, and is about Bear Bull Traders, not Aziz. This Business Insider article is the same situation as WP:RSNP and is the same content as Investopedia; an advertisement for a company, not content about Aziz. This Business Insider India article is in-depth about Aziz, but again per WP:RSNP is questionable at best, and is a single article; WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources, and a single questionable source doesn't cut it. As for WP:NAUTHOR, he meets none of the criteria; the reviews of a book don't contribute to the notability of the author, and being ranked on Amazon's lists mean nothing; reviews can be bought and the number of reviews is a WP:BIGNUMBER argument that doesn't hold any weight, and being ranked in a very specific category of Amazon books is not an indication of notability, especially given how that ranking can be manipulated. Notability's just not there. - Aoidh (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. What about this publication? This should work with Business Insider for two sources of notability.  Bestwaytoedit (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC) — Bestwaytoedit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Questionable reliability of that content aside, that's an interview. Interviews are not independent sources and do not contribute to the notability of the person being interviewed. - Aoidh (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, and appreciate that you at least did not call me sockfarm! Ref above is not an interview, but written after discussion with Author. Very similar to many format of reporting. I do believe based on NAUTHOR at least two sources are valid for this author. I have seen surpassingly much weaker sources to pass notability for some figures here.
 * I still believe these three sources are not-affiliated, not-paid, not-solicited reliable sources for passing criteria
 * Andrew Aziz has some sort of a fan club in the Net, and he runs meeting all around the world with his traders. I have met him personally, and follow his works for years, but I have no COI really. So I do understand the enthusiasm in voting with some folks, but a fair Admin should consider that notability for NAUTHOR is VERY CLEAR. "Two" reliable sources, which I think this article has.
 * Reg questionability, I understand questionability of some sources, but that can go to pretty much on any source on Internet. I can call all your sources quesiotbale (for the sake of argument of coruse). CNN and Fox News are also very questionable, depending on how you ask and from which political perceptive you look at them. CNN is fake news for one part and FOX is out of touch with reality. on another group One can question 13000 review as fake and purchased, and everything from COVID to US election conspiracy and questionable.
 * Thanks anyways. Bestwaytoedit (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You say notability through WP:NAUTHOR is "very clear", but the claim to WP:NAUTHOR is an Amazon ranking and a number of reviews, neither of which are criteria of WP:NAUTHOR and both of which are so easily manipulated as to be meaningless metrics for anything, especially notability. Are there any reliable sources that show that this ranking on Amazon is in some way significant? We don't even have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, let alone ones showing that the subject's Amazon book ranking is in some way a significant feat that in any way even begins to approach meeting any of the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR. The only thing that is "very clear" is that this article's subject is propped up by sources that fall apart under scrutiny and that do not contribute to the reliability of the subject. As for the source I called an interview, I don't see how it's not an interview but that label, whether it applies or not, is ultimately immaterial to the issue of the source; all of the coverage of the subject in that source is from the subject himself through his own words and opinions. Whether you call that an interview or not doesn't matter; what he says is not independent of himself, no matter what format that comes in. So while yes, it is an interview by definition (a report or reproduction of information so obtained), even if it wasn't it wouldn't make the source's content somehow independent, when the content comes from the subject himself. - Aoidh (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for the patience on this! Specially I know an experienced Wikipedian like you often do not bother to explain very much.
 * No I do not want to talk about Amazon reviews or ranking at all for notability. But I can not really accept possibly that all of his 13,500 Amazon reviews are fake and ranking of his books are all manipulated (very unlikely) and does not prove anything about notability of this person and that his work is widely read and well-received. Furthermore his Google Knowledge Badge verifies a significant amount of search on Google for him, and his followings and verified accounts in all social media that passed through independent review of those medias.
 * But even if we do not agree on that, here is notability Criteria I like to emphasize
 * WP:NOTBOOK
 * A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
 * "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."
 * And notable books come under notable authors: Per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
 * "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read.
 * Books are notable (and thus kept) if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not."
 * Criteria for NOTBOOK is clear, and sources that talk about his books, such as [2 ] [3 ] [4 ] can satiety criteria of 1 (at least 2). You may say, OK all of them are questionable, but again questionability is a very subjective. Anyone can call anything questionable. What is important here, sources are not-affiliated, not-paid, not solicitated, and they are NOT yellow journalism. All sources obviously mention a highly regarded book, a best seller, and introduce author in a notable way.
 * So if his books are notable (which I think they are), the author should be notable, there is no way these two can become uncorrelated.
 * Another Comment was his book is Vanity press and can not be notable, but here is the criteria I like to emphasize:
 * According to Notability (books) vanity press can meet criteria of 1 for notable books. "Exceptions do exist, such as Robert Gunther's Early Science in Oxford and Edgar Allan Poe's Tamerlane, but both of these books would be considered notable by virtue (for instance) of criterion 1."
 * Unfortunately damage by his fans apparently here are big that I may not be able to change your consensus that Andrew Aziz actually is notable, but in fairness, he passes criteria of a notable author in my humble opinion. I hope I can at least transfer my ideas to you. Bestwaytoedit (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't have a position on the fate of this article, it's just very odd that a brand new editor, with their 2nd edit ever, would nominate this article for deletion. Is Andrew Aziz considered controversial? Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Liz, Andrew Aziz has a combination of fans and haters in the Internet. He has been a target of several notorious and convicted defamtors before. See this: If you read comments around that video you see how he has haters and fans at the same time. Video is nonsense of course if you watch it completely and it is only a clickbait for the producer to make money from YT Ads.
 * I think according to sources such as such as [2 ] [3 ] [4 ] one can reasonably believe he is notable as an Author, and his books specially for 2016 How to Day Trade for a Living. It is hard to assume all of his 13,300 verified purchased reviews and rankings are fake. Amazon is also cracking down heavily on fake reviews and delete them. Andrew Aziz Google Badge and verified social media accounts also may shows a notability. Since his books are not published through traditional publishing routes, it is not listed in any NYT bestsellers or other lists because only traditional publishing houses will be considered in those lists.
 * It is generally safe to assume that his work is widely-accepted by trading community, yet hard to quantify exactly. He is an invited speakers in high quality events such as MoneyShow: which can show notability in his field as a trader and author similar to other traders authors: Alexander Elder or Brian Shannon
 * But more than anything else a very clear criteria for WP:Author can be met just by these sources:
 * Disclaimer: I have met Andrew Aziz in one of his conferences and followed his books and trading work for few years, but I have no COI whatsoever. Just an editor familiar with the article, that is all. Bestwaytoedit (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * this comment is without merit to the notability of the subject itself, but this AfD's nom is very odd, but absolutely does fit a certain pattern, especially given this article's (not immediately apparent) connection with India; the nom's first edit was to place an UPE tag on the article page, the second and third were this AfD, and the fourth and fifth were to create their userpage and talk page so that they weren't redlinks and therefore not immediately obvious that it was a brand new account. All of those edits were done within 120 seconds of each other and they have not edited since (and very likely will not edit again). They knew exactly what they were doing, and there is no way this is their only account. In my (limited) experience with UPEs and with what I've seen on AN/I, nobody hates an article created by a perceived UPE more than another paid editor does, especially in the realm of UPEs from India and about topics in any way related to India. I'm not saying this article was created by an UPE, I don't know, but I am absolutely positive that the person behind the account that AfD'd this is a paid edtior, likely part of a company that advertises article creation services, who is rallying against the (perceived) competition. Their very first edit gives their intentions away immediately; it is not the article or its subject they have an issue with, it is the competition from another UPE that they are trying to sabotage in order to increase their own standing. I've seen it before and this ticks all the right boxes, so I just thought I'd explain what's going on here. - Aoidh (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Filed a sockpuppet investigation case at Sockpuppet investigations/Communityknlodege. For the record, there was also a WP:CANVASS attempt here. cc: . Pilaz (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2022 (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.