Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Williams's (stock trader)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Tom Williams's (stock trader)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only notability appears to be an author and creator of Volume spread analysis. Our article on Volume spread analysis has been single-sourced to the creator's website since 2009 and gives no indication as to its use or acceptance. I can find no additional sources about Tom Williams the person, even if he does pass WP:NAUTHOR my vote is still to delete for lack of WP:RS. If a redirect is necessary, it should be at Tom Williams and not at this misspelled title. shoy (reactions) 15:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am offering no opinion on the deletion issue; however, if someone notes that some of the text appears to match text in this site, Please note the site owner is prepared to provide a suitable license for the text. I am going to hold off processing the permission pending resolution of the deletion question.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, the only reference does not seem reliable or independent. fails notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as the article would seem acceptable but is going need to better work and with there being no chances of it, there's nothing to suggest keeping at this time. SwisterTwister   talk  05:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. no evidence for notabvility of either hthe person or his method.The book listed in the article is not even in WorldCat.  DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up enough to show notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:50, 21 October 2015 (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.