Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse financial instrument

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. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse financial instrument

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

As far as I can tell, mostly nonsense; it might be a confused rendering of something else, but I can't quite figure out what it should be; there's no obvious target to redirect to. Note that the term "reverse financial instrument" gets perhaps two or three google hits at all, though it does seem vaguely familiar. Shimgray | talk | 16:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I do not so far propagate hits for reverse financial instrument by linking from other articles makes the article more wrong.. uhh man.. wut's the deal -- Juxo (talk)

Now I put a link into the "See also" section of put option i.e. I'm starting to propagate the term. Reverse financial instrument shows up on googel at number 3 for search on "in reverse trading" (and this is before I started putting link(s) in other article(s) -- Juxo (talk)

.. except of the redir -- Juxo (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC) ps. The article put option is wrong on many points. Take for example the graphs.. -- Juxo (talk)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 16:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading Hedge fund is a pain and yet doesn't even scratch the surface. --Juxo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I added an introductory chapter see reverse financial instrument --Juxo (talk)

Delete No reliable sources discuss this term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask jimbo's opinion -- Juxo (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps. The article put option is wrong on many points. Take for example the graphs.. -- Juxo (talk)

I cannot find anyone documenting any such thing, either. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuscation by NYSE cabal like you has consistently prevented the evolution of clear and consise terms in the field of finance. Prove me wrong the lot of j00 who voted delete. Keep --Juxo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC). . Go hide in your Library of Congress den and leave us zikizens alone. Your troll is fu. You too Uncle G --Juxo (talk) American college text books on finance are a load of rubbish --Juxo (talk)[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.