Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ponzi Factor


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Ponzi Factor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find enough to establish that this book is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The Ponzi Factor was featured twice on Redacted Tonight (eps. 194 and 196), which is funded by an international news network. The author will also be doing more interviews for radio, TV, and print in the weeks ahead, which is why this page was created. Additional sources and citations for the information listed will be added over the next week. --Quantstyle (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can't see anything here to merit inclusion. Author appears non-notable, much of the content of this article sounds like original research. Deb (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – Well written article, kudos to the author. We can use your talents here at Wikipedia.    However, an e-book that has not generated any coverage in secondary sources, at this point.  Hopefully it takes off.  Until that time, only a promotional piece that is self-serving and not encyclopedic worthy. ShoesssS Talk 18:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By well written I assume you mean prolix?TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Hey you are talking to the longest winded editor here…..I can’t say hello in under 20 words. ShoesssS Talk 13:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – Not notable as per WP:NBOOK nor WP:GNG. Even if the author features in interviews the book will not automatically become notable. --Count Count (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It meets condition one of WP:NBOOK The Ponzi Factor was featured twice on Redacted Tonight (eps. 194 and 196). It has also been on the Amazon bestseller list: Ranked #7 for the Economic Conditions category for Kindle books, and ranked #5 for the Public Policy category for print. This page should remain. The author will provide more notable sources by the end of June. --Quantstyle (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One !vote only, please. -- Smallbones( smalltalk ) 9:48 am, Yesterday (UTC+9)


 * Delete - the book is WP:OR which is fine, but our article is as well. RT is not a reliable source, especially in finance. The Russian state has been proclaiming the ultimate popping of the capitalist bubble is just around the corner since 1917. I find the book's (apparently) statement "Most companies never pay dividends or buy back their shares," just wrong. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment NOTE: The objection from Smallbones is irrelevant. The purpose of this article is to briefly describe the content of the book. An agreement or disagreement with the content is completely irrelevant. This is not a debate about how he thinks the stock market works, his personal opinions about finance, or RT. The author is Chinese American. He has no affiliations with the Russian government. To suggest something like that is ridiculous.--Quantstyle (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Only one bolded recommendation on a bulleted line per editor please. See WP:AFDFORMAT. --Count Count (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Being featured on an international television show seems to pass notability. Arguments about the content of the book are irrelevant to this discussion. Egaoblai (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment  Please don't not add a WP:!vote to each post you make. Even though the outcome of an AFD discussion is not based upon which side has more votes and editors can comment more than once, multiple !voting is not allowed. My suggestion to you would be to go back and strike-through two of the three "keep" !votes you added. (You just need to strike-though the word "Keep"). Also, please don't edit comments left by other editors like you did here to a post by Smallbones as explained in WP:TPO. Even if your intentions are good and you're just fixing a typo or other minor error, editing/refactoring others posts should only be done under certain specific conditions such as when a major policy violation, etc. needs to be addressed. Finally, your choice of username is the same as the company which published this book. Is there any connection between you and Quantstyle LLC? If there is such a connection, please carefully read through Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and also Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. A conflict of interest doesn't mean that this article automatically needs to be deleted, but it does mean that you will be expected to adhere to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines for such editing. Even if there is no connection, you should still change your username per WP:ORGNAME because users aren't allowed to use names deemed promotion or to represent a particular group or organization. Users who do try and use such usernames often find their accounts WP:SOFTBLOCKed until a change is made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment  Apologies. I'm new to this and researching the policy pages, and practices as people in this discussion are posting them. I was not aware that I was voting multiple times. I used the word "keep" because it is an antonym to "delete." I didn't know it was a vote. I switched the word "keep" with "comment." I will review what you wrote carefully later and make sure I'm contributing properly. Thank you.--Quantstyle (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can find out more about how to participate in these types of discussions at WP:AFD. Just for reference, you don't need to add a bolded header/statement for every comment you make. If you'd like to respond to something someone else has posted, do so directly below their post using indentation like I've done here and to of your other "comments" above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2018 (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.