Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top (technical analysis)


 * 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 redirect to Chart pattern. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Top (technical analysis)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is an encyclopdia, not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete One of the guidelines of Wikipedia is verifiability. This states that articles must have sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 00:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - With no references, this article does not satisfy general notability because it does not show significant coverage by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - See also Bottom (technical analysis). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See what I said at Articles for deletion/Bottom (technical analysis), and deletion policy for what the actual policy is on sources existing for expansion versus sources being cited in an article. Neither John Pack Lambert nor Robert McClenon are correct about policy, and we know from the ensuing kerfuffle that the nominator did not research any of this group of AFD nominations. If not for one thing, one could actually rename and refactor this article because what it is describing is not a "top" but what Richard W. Schabacker, and everyone since the 1930s following xem, called a "Head and Shoulders".  The one thing is the existence of a proper Head and shoulders (chart pattern) article that came along some 3 years later.  &#9786;  This is an article that went after the word "top", rather than the pattern (with Schabacker and others in hand), but ended up describing a pattern for which we have a far better article.  We do not lose anything by losing this, because it is actually misleading. Uncle G (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. See WP:NEXIST for more information.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chart pattern Missvain (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chart patterns. Currently an esoteric fork comprising only of a dicdef.    SITH   (talk)   01:34, 8 May 2021 (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.