Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk Forward Optimization


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Walk Forward Optimization

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:COATRACK, original research, non-reliable sources, not verifiable, not neutral, inappropriate tone, novel synthesis, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, neologism  Chzz  ► 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --KFP (contact | edits) 00:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - and possibly rename as walk forward analysis. For some reason, the editor has started somewhere deep in the details rather than at a higher level topic of which this is a part.  This encyclopedia on trading strategies discusses this very topic.  This technical analysis book also covers the topic.  This book shows that the optimisation is part of an overall walk-forward simulation.  It's also covered in this book.  I'll stop here, but there are more book results.  The article has a lot of problems, including being completely opaque to somebody not already familiar with the subject matter.  However, that is an issue of editting and not of deletion. -- Whpq 14:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for your guidance, shall look into the matter. Please give a week or so, please.. Moreover, if it is possible to move it back to my own userspace to make it a better article before going live.. please do so.. Sincere thanks and apologies once more.. Ruthiecameryn (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - If a topic is notable, it's my own personal belief that leaving it in the main article space rather than hiding it in userspace is the way to go. Multiple editors all working together to create and improve articles is the way a wiki operates.  If it is hidden in userspace, only the one editor will know about it and be working on it.  -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This would appear to be verifiably a notable term of art for something.  This is barely English, but it is a start towards something. Normalize the case of the title if kept. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for the guidance, including the links etc.. I agree with you all and welcome your changes and reviews also as the main aim is to educate the public.. If keeping the page public helps in making it useful and valuable to the public, I fully support it. :) Three Cheers! Am making notes and trying to see how to make it a better article. Please continue to guide me, and let me know as to how to change the title if that is more appropriate? Thanks :) --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please clarify as to where to ask for queries or help regarding sources, notes, etc. as per the template notices? Should the queries be put here or on the Talk:Walk Forward Optimization? --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - Yes. -- Whpq (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic without refs, plenty on google. Regular editing fixes the style problems. Szzuk (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The topic may merit an article, no comment on that, but this article? This one seems to even conclude with an advertisement of a specific piece of software. --KFP (contact | edits) 01:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - Any advertising can be editted out. It doesn't require deletion of the entire article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p  05:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Note: there is some consensus here, but nobody has addressed the nominator's concerns as thoroughly as I'd like. Relisting for that purpose. m.o.p  05:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Okay. I will go through in much more detail.
 * 1) WP:COATRACK: I don't see how this article is a coatrack.  The article does ramble, and could use a heavy does of trimming, but it isn't being used as a means for advancing biased opinions.
 * 2) WP:OR: The book sources I provided clearly show that third party indepedent sources discuss this topic.  This isn't a topic that has been dreamed up by the article's creator.
 * 3) WP:RS: The fact that the article has non-reliable sources does not invalidate the fact that reliable sources do exist and can be used to replace the unreliable ones.
 * 4) WP:V:  Clearly related to reliable sources, so the fact that they do exist regardless of whether they are currently in the article establishes that we can have a verifiable article.
 * 5) WP:NPOV:  Being non-neutral is treated by deletion in only the most egregious irredeemable cases.  This may have some hyperbole such as "Think of it as an ‘out-of-sample’ testing on steroids.", but there is nothing that cannot be fixed by editting.
 * 6) WP:TONE:  The article is written as an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, and has issues with phrasing as mentioned in the point before.  Again, this is fixed by editting and not deletion.
 * 7) WP:SYNTH:  I am assuming this refers to the conclusion section and similar elements of the article.  It's not synthesis if these supported by reliable sources, and the fact that material is gathered in a conclusion section is a result of the essay style in which the article is written.  This can be treated by editting, and the use of reliable sources already shown to exist.
 * 8) WP:DIC:  Honestly, I don't know why this is in the nomination.  This is clearly not just a dictionary definition.
 * 9) WP:NEO:  This is not a neologism, as the book sources show, this is a term of art in the the financial field, and there is a body of literature behind it.
 * I believe that covers all of the reasons stated in the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject which is tagged as needing expert attention. Needs to be improved, not deleted. FWIW, I added the books mentioned above to references. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2011 (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.