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) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pair options

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The primary problem with this article is verifiability and notability. This is a seemingly little-known financial instrument that is sold only by one newly-formed and non-notable company. Other than their apparently proprietary information, there is no information out there on how they function. In particular, there have been two main contributors to this article: Adrian88888, and WilliamG. Adrian88888 has made few other contributions to Wikipedia, other than putting in an inappropriate link to the company in another article (although to be fair, wisely reverted him/herself). WilliamG appears to have some source(s) of information on this topic, but so far has been unwilling to divulge how s/he knows about the subject (see talk page). In any case, as pointed out by Ulner on the talk page, it is unclear what these "pair options" actually are. In particular, the payoff is completely mysterious; the article only gives an example where the following is said "...in case he is right, the payout is given by: ADD". It has been like that since WilliamG's first edits. Note that there are several "references" given in the article. These were added by WilliamG in response to Ulner's requests. But they are not actually references to this new topic of "pair options", but to financial instruments with similar naming, which already have their own Wikipedia articles. Their relevance is not clear; WilliamG claims that "pair options" are sufficiently different and notable to require its own article, but these other topics are related enough to serve as kinds of references. Again, since there are no reliable sources for us to consult, these are claims we have to take on faith. DudeOnTheStreet (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree : I am interested in financial mathematics and came across this entry here, and since then researched it quite a bit. It was not written in a proper way so did my best to upgrade it and add substance. The cliams don't have to be take on faith, but evaluated by people who are familiar to the domain. Outperformance Options, Pair Options, Alpha Binary Options have similarities in that they are based on relative performance,but each one is different, as much as Vanilla Options and Binary Options are different, the therfore have separate entries --WillliamG (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DudeOnTheStreet's comments; article does not have reliable sources supporting notability. Ulner (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't really fathom these exotic options and fancy derivatives, but that's irrelevant. What matters is that I am also unable to find any significant sources writing about pair options. Given the volume of books written on investing and finance, and the research on it, the fact there is no coverage in any books, or in Google scholar is rather telling. I don't doubt that this product exists and is being sold by somebody as a financial instrument, but it isn't a notable one. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete- Exotic Options are an important financial instruments. Both for traders and for financial institutions. This is an evolving domain , just two weeks ago NASDAQ launched Alpha Index Options, also options that have not appeared in any publication until recently. Just like Pair Options, they are options on Relative Performance , and are important as they offer the trader theoretically Beta neutral instruments. (depends on the correlations..)--Mikeruon (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — Mikeruon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment' - Can you provide proof that these are important options in the form of significant coverage in reliable sources? -- Whpq (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When reliable sources describe this financial service in detail, then so will we. Until then, it isn't notable. Chester Markel (talk) 01:21, 7 May 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.