Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principal and interest guaranteed security


 * 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Principal and interest guaranteed security

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

Blatant advert for a type of loan offered by one (only one) Canadian company, with links to the company and it's subsidiary. No assertion of notability and no secondary sources.  JohnnyMrNinja  03:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Unreferenced, created by SPA, reads as a disguised company advert. Minkythecat (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. My initial impression on reading this was to speedily delete it as blatant advertising.  I see that speedy deletion had been declined by DGG on that ground, so I reverted myself.  I beg to differ; it is blatant advertising:  PIGS are not only safe because of the diversified range of businesses within the basket but because the fund also takes a direct involvement in each of the businesses in which they invest. Thru its subsidiary company Integrated Business Concepts (IBC) and other supporting affiliates, a complete synergy is formed. Best practices are implemented in each company from the training of the CEO down to the way the receptionist answers the phone. This type of synergy is essential in obtaining the fastest path to profitability since time, energy, and capital is not wasted on the learning curve.  Yeah, sure, and I have a bridge for sale, too.  It may be better to just let it run its course, so that any attempt to re-create similar or related articles can be summarily deleted.  Quaere, is there a "Wikipedia does not offer investment advice" template? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I confess I did not notice those two paragraphs, for some reason--if I had, I would at least have deleted them. Now, if those paragraphs were removed, would there possibly be an article? If so, it does not qualify for speedy. The question really is, are there other references to this?  DGG (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong response - Searching for this phrase hasn't revealed anything. I highly encourage anyone who thinks they might find for notability to look before the end of this AfD, but I have personally come up with nothing.  JohnnyMrNinja  07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article seems to propose the sale of a kind of mutual fund with an investment strategy that is, ahem, highly unusual. The proponents claim to be able to guarantee their investors a return based on a fund that says it invests in startups that also buy a common management plan from the same people.  It would surprise me to find that this is a widely shared strategy, and frankly,   "it'll end in tears." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found to provide WP:V for WP:N ... Happy Editing! &mdash;  15:45, 5 June 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.