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. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISA Trend Investing[edit]

ISA Trend Investing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be an advertisement for a particular investment company's strategy masquerading as an article about that strategy. The strategy itself appears to be a simple variation on Momentum investing, with particular applications to the UK's Individual Savings Accounts, not quite worthy of its own standalone article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
In regards to the concern pertaining to similarities to momentum investing, the strategy follows a similar philosophy to trend investing, not momentum investing. And this in itself is merely one facet of the strategy. If the previous critic feels that innovating and developing current knowledge, tools and strategies is not noteworthy, then perhaps this person may disagree with advances in technology as well as other things, because most things developed today are innovations of yesterday, society progresses by innovating ways of doing more with less. The strategy achieves this by harnessing various tools and concepts, but also details a very precise plan on how to successfully undertake the strategy, for example one quote notes "they [ISA Trend Investors] don’t buy individual stocks as they carry too much risk. Nor do they buy index tracker funds because it’s possible to “beat” the indexes if you know what you are doing. ISA Trend Investors buy their fund or funds only when the market is healthy (uptrend). When the market is unhealthy (downtrend), they remain in a cash-based fund." This is very specific information and not just a generalistic concept/theory like momentum investing.
As can be viewed from the article history, this article has been frequently updated to ensure it fits with Wikipedia's article policies, and the article will continue to be updated to ensure it remains this way. Shaun2011 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Further, the critic states that the article is "overly promotional", however there is no promotion within the article, there are no direct links to the founders of the strategy (as mentioned briefly the article has been edited due to concerns and toned down), there is merely background information to the strategy and how it is applied. It is very clear the critiques are based on personal assumptions and is very clearly over-exaggerated, as it contrasts what is within the article.
The critic may have issues with the founders of the strategy or their line of work, the quote the critic provided clearly implies this, however assumptions made against the founders should not lead to an unfair bias made against the content of the article. This critic seems to make a number of biased assumptions.
In regards to the references, firstly there is a widely-published book regarding the content. Which in itself was reviewed positively by some of the world's most successful business people. On top of this Google has over 3,940,000 results for ISA Trend Investing. These range from news sites, to investing websites, to personal blogs.
Instead of the critic making wild assumptions about the article, which hold no solid ground, I feel it would be more constructive if the critic made recommendations on what may be improved to better facilitate the wikipedia audience, as this is what Wikipedia is all about, it is not about one person's assumptions, but the wider, international community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaun2011 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact".
In keeping with this, lets begin with the UK's leading magazine for Company Directors, Directors Magazine (magazine for members of the Institute of Directors):
"ISA trend investing. You trade investment funds, not stocks, using an ISA, a SIPP or both" [1]
So there is one reliable source according to Wikipedia policy.
Also, please see Amazon's community for ISA Trend Investing, you will not only find Liquid Millionaire within the ISA Trend Investing Community, and I invite the critic to investigate why it isn't the only book within the ISA Trend Investing community within Amazon, here take a look: http://www.amazon.co.uk/tag/isa%20trend%20investing/products/ref=tag_stp_hd_istp
How about this key point from WP:RS#News organizatons?
"When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint".
Here is an article from Andy Sacker, who is an Investor – Marketer – and Author. He is a self-made, entrepreneurial, Multi-Millionaire.
Now here is his review of ISA Trend Investing: http://andysacker.com/how-to-capitalize-on-the-2009-isa-season
Here is another well known News organisation, quoted "proving it is possible to beat the market over the long-term using ISA Trend Investing" http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/view/pressrelease/isaco-ltd-isa-investment-specialists-isaco-limited-predict-imminent-market-rally-440414
Do keep this quote in mind "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples
And consider that the previous reference is from an international news site, we also listed a UK leading Directors magazine, website, we also have an independant, successful, business multi-millionaire.
Now considering the previous critique asked for "any" reliable sources, keeping with Wikipedia's policy, numerous sources have now been provided. My last search turned up over 4,000,000 results for ISA Trend Investing on Google, and I appreciate the previous critic suggested he/she can not find any reliable sources. Well I suggest, considering there are 4 million (and rapidly increasing, especially as my previous explanation noted 3,940,000 - thats an increase of around 60,000 references in about 2 days - the equivalent of 1,250 references being created per hour) sources to look through, I suggest it is a bit unrealistic for the critic to imply he/she has searched them all, and only found unreliable sources. Especially after a quick search has turned up the Wikipedia politico-acceptable results above. Shaun2011 (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In sum, Shaun has provided exactly one source that might remotely be considered reliable. I think that it would be best if both he and I recused ourselves from further discussion so that other voices can be heard in this discussion and proper consensus reached. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


-- Shaun2011 (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Shaun2011 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the point made regarding a consensus being made.

I would like to share my dissapointment in regards to the critic, as he/she previously stated "If Shaun or anyone else can provide any reliable sources, I'll be willing to re-evaluate". Well he/she has now agreed at least one of the sources I provided, "could actually be considered a reliable source". Yet no re-evaluation has been made. Clearly showing a lack of integrity.

In fact, I would like to re-iterate the guidelines, beings the critic assumes he/she knows them so well, to the general audience so that they can make an even more informed decision:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] **For example, there are available texts on trend investing, and ISA's. Further materials can be found for partiular tools used such as technical analysis, behavioural investing etc, which is all pertinent to the strategy covered, and others which are not directly themed in regard to the strategy but contain information in regards to it, such as the book on Amazon. There was also the reliable source that was agreed, and the 21,000 references the critic found using the precise search on Google. Which are not all promotional as was suggested in the previous comment, the critic initially said he/she couldn't find any reliable sources in their first comment, then after I made a quick search, I found at least one source he/she deemed reliable, this goes to show the critic is too lazy to search and would rather make an exaggerated decision, which ultimately affects the Wikipedia knowledge community.


"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. **There is a widely published book regarding the overall strategy, an independant editorial by Directors magazine and various books available regarding individual parts of the strategy**.


"Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. **There is a widely published book by the founder as mentioned above, there is the agreed reliable source by Directors magazine with editorial and there are numerous independant books available on various aspects within the strategy**.


"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4] **As mentioned above, there are numerous sources regarding the various tools and philosophies involved in this strategy and add to that the agreed reliable independant source by the UK's leading organisation for Directors, which includes an independant editorial**.

Considering this criteria, I am happy to leave it to the wider audience to identify the fulfilled criteria.

Shaun2011 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.
More