• "Wikipedia is not a comparison website" - User:GloriaJFM

  • (my response: Given that there are thousands of "Comparison" articles on Wikipedia, which website would be best for user-submitted content to maintain a comparison of stock brokerages, such that the companies that offer trading stocks on stock exchanges also extend info exchanges and trading for other types of services, kind of like a platform? I was thinking of initially focusing specifically on "Comparison of Stock Brokerages" but given so many other types of trading, including mutual funds, index funds, real estate investment trusts, bonds, and forex/currencies I wasn't sure if that would be best practice, so I considered to prepare the content to be inclusive of most mainstream exchange trading markets in mind.)

• "Extremely strong keep per WP:SNOW. Ping me if you want me to give more detail about why nom is wrong here." - User:Dr. Universe

  • (my response: As I initially created and gradually populated some preliminary data, I tried to keep in mind to provide objective factual information. Ideally I even want to make sure that every cell containing data has sources cited (at least 1) from the primary companies/service providers own websites/resources so that if any questions or disputes arise, including potential subjective interpretation, that (and I've previously made so many phone calls to several of the companies too, when I had some questions or was unsure about some informations, but overall I also spoke to the staff of the companies insisting for a linkable citeable resource to insure that what they were telling me is also citeable on Wikipedia/Internet, as a link to the source of information) if any disputes or wrong, misinformation/disinformation is possibly included, that at the very least, it could be corrected with accurate, factual, verifiable correct information. Also note I personally have been a bit lazy to maintain completing a lot of the data that I prepared empty cells for a lot of the providers (especially companies in countries that their languages are beyond my ability to comprehend, but also, due to the current nature of USA stock markets related to Payment for order processing, dark pools, internalizers, and other complexities of stock exchanges, and the last 6 months of policies and regulations that have been involved relating to these concerns which may be altering how to present some of the columns of tables, I haven't fully realized a best way to present those types of informations, and I also am not sure if the columns are specific to only stocks, or other types of trading platforms, therefore, I have been kind of stalled to address best practice in terms of maintaining the table structures for all the countries/continents/regions to appear identical. I think future regulations and policies that will finalize sometime in the future will be able to address various questions I have, including which I attempted to express in the talk page of the article.)

• "Delete. While the nominator might be a sockpuppet, they are unfortunately correct about this article (probably a "good" edit to disguise bad edits). This isn't the right way to think about online trading platforms and is a bizarre bit of OR. There are valid "Comparison of XYZ" articles on Wikipedia (e.g. Comparison of web browsers), but this is not one of them because it's charts of irrelevant things that can't be reduced to yes/no and is hard to reference, unlike simple valid material for a chart like "is this open source or proprietary code"" - User:SnowFire

  • (my response: What does "probably a "good" edit to disguise bad edits)" mean or imply? I do not understand this. Which "edits" are speculated as "bad" edits? A few months ago, there was at least 1 of my edits which was a mistake, bad edit that I deeply regret somehow not noticing/realizing it until User:MarnetteD corrected my mistake/bad edit on April 5th, 2021, and I meant to edit differently than what had occurred. I made a mistake that time, and I am sorry/apologetic for that mistake, and I will avoid making that mistake again. Also, shortly after that, I realized/learned that there is a GUI part of the editor to fill in references with the metadata for links, and after I realized that, I started to use that to provide better reference rather than just manually typing out the the \<ref\>\</ref\> markup every time I referenced an external link.)
  • (my response 2: What does "and is a bizarre bit of OR" mean? What is OR? I apologize if the comparison content appears bizarre. What suggestions are there to adjust the perception of "bizarre" way to think about stock brokerages/online trading platforms so as to adjust the content to appear as no longer "bazarre?" Even the Online_trading_platform article main description states "This includes products such as stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities, derivatives and others" which is the same idea I had in mind when creating the Comparison article, but in such a way that for each region (e.g. country/continent), even if the same multi-national company, because some companies have different data values in different regions too, One main table to compare all the companies/online trading platforms indicating which types of "financial products" are provided, and then also one additional table for each of the different "financial products" (e.g. stocks, forex, etc.) to further compare the more refined essential pieces of information that are only contained within that subset of "financial product" and do not have any meaning or value outside of that scope of comparison (or in some cases -- I think?, there may be some overlap with columns/terms such that each different "financial product" has a different value for the same column/term such that it would be more appropriate in the table specific to that "financial product" rather than the main general tables.)
  • (my response 3: re: "this is not one of them because it's charts of irrelevant things that can't be reduced to yes/no and is hard to reference," Several of the columns are already explicitly presented as "reduced to yes/no." Heck, most of the columns are "yes/no" types of information. There is one caveat to this that I somewhat agree with in terms of "hard to reference" and that is the "chat support" and "phone support" columns, but only when I encountered multi-national companies that have so many different phone numbers for different parts of the world. I was not sure on how to best present this information in a standard fashion, and also I am not even sure if it should be included or not, but for the moment, I decided to try to find a way to do so, include this type of information. For example IG in Europe. Any suggestions about this are appreciated.) Jasonkhanlar ( talk) 06:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Jasonkhanlar: Welcome to Wikipedia! There's a lot of jargon and acronyms to learn, sadly.
    • Re "good edits and bad edits" - I was referring to the nominator of this AFD, not the maintainer of the article (i.e. you Jasonkhanlar). Sockpuppets of experienced users will sometimes do reasonable edits like anti-vandalism revisions to attempt to look like a normal account before pushing whatever agenda the sockpuppeteer really wants to do. Just because these "good edits" came from a sockpuppeteer doesn't mean they should be discounted on sight. I was claiming that the nomination of this article for AFD was still valid, basically. (There are troll accounts that start AFDs that should just be speedy closed.)
    • Re "OR" - WP:OR, that is, "original research." Entire essays have been written about just what this really means, but "original research by synthesis" is what the delete voters including me are bringing up, where verifiably true facts are combined in a novel way. Not saying it NECESSARILY applies here, but ideally the categories in this article need to be the kind of thing reliable sources would judge elsewhere - it's not just a Wikipedia-invention. As an extreme example, imagine if this article had columns like "Zodiac sign of CEO" and "MLB team that won World Series in year of its founding". Even with valid references that yes, E*TRADE was founded in 1982, and the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series that year, this particular combination of facts isn't the kind of thing other sources use. The actual article's examples aren't as blatant, but that's the idea. — SnowFire 16:24, 23 July 2021 — continues after insertion below
      • I understand. I can agree with "Zodiac sign of CEO" as being irrelevant. To that extent, I guess overall, both the "chat support" and the "phone support" columns are .... I'm still kind of divided in terms of usefulness of this column, particularly as it relates to stock brokerages or online trading platform service providers that do not have any phone support or chat support, such that a yes/no type of comparison might be relevant. In terms of OR (original research), however, maybe nobody has published source citable information researching this previously, such that if I do the information gathering research myself, then it is my own (or others' own -- in the case of anyone else contributing to filling in the information themselves) researches. In my mind, if I were to perosnally use the comparison data to glance through the list of providers, any of them that do not offer phone support or at least chat support (if both "no"), I would then not look at those service providers, and I'd prefer to find providers that potentially have real humans that I can interact with. And already, from my personal experiences the last 5 months, even with some other personal business concerns, I've encountered entirely automated business phone number services that have no possible way to ever reach any human, no matter what. That is not "phone support" in my opinion, just because there is a phone number, does not mean support by phone is possible. I guess this type of column of information might be difficult to classify as researched information, even despite the historical existence of those huge fat heavy Yellow Pages books which seem to have disappeared, and even a bunch of Internet-style yellow pages listings that used to exist 10-20 years ago seem to be practically gone too now. Jasonkhanlar ( talk) 08:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, things like "chat support" are problematic. I'd also argue that a single catch-all column called "Cryptocurrencies" with a y/n answer is highly misleading at best, for one example. SnowFire ( talk) 07:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Sure! I can remove the "chat support" column. Is the "phone support" column also problematic as well? If so, I could remove both columns altogether. Somewhat I do not understand about the cryptocurrencies column, Further, I have previously considered that I do not want to focus including any companies that exclusively only offer cryptocurrency transactions. I only want to include listing companies that offer primary "financial products" such as stock brokerages, forex brokerages (fiat currencies), bonds, etc., and if any of those companies also offer service in cryptocurrency trading, to account for that as well. But maybe this is problematic or unacceptable information to include? If so, that type of information is not necessarily too important given that, as far as I understand, despite efforts to try to governmentally regulate cryptocurrencies, I believe as of yet it is still not regulated or regulatable by governments, which may explain why perhaps it is problematic, even if any companies that abide by government regulations extend into including trading services in unregulated markets. And also I can completely agree that with the dozens, or hundreds of different cryptocurrencies that exist, it can be almost impossible to really be useful having such a column, or even being part of this type of comparison article. If anything, the type of information might be more suitable for its own dedicated article or place. I can remove that "cryptocurrencies" column as well, especially as it may relate to AfD/OR concerns. Primarily I'd like to further revise the contents of the data so that it meets Wikipedia's standards/requirements. Jasonkhanlar ( talk) 07:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Also, I just quickly glanced at a few of the "yes" listings in the crpytocurrencies column and, for example, I see Pepperstone which first line description mentions they are a broker that specializes in financial instruments including cryptocurrencies. This example of reusing the word "cryptocurrencies" which that article about Pepperstone catch-all uses it, perhaps in such a way that is not misleading, but if repeating that information in the comparison article, then somehow it becomes misleading. I am confused about how to interpret this, and where does the source of misleading experience originate or occur or manifest? Jasonkhanlar ( talk) 08:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

•  Note: I didn't post the 'WP:SNOW comment' (it was an unsigned comment by Dr. Universe), so I struck my name ( diff). Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 06:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry for the mistake. I corrected it also. Also in case of any confusion, all the "my response" comments are mine. Jasonkhanlar ( talk) 06:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Also note that, personally I am still learning starting February 2021 about not only stock brokerages, but also I want to eventually learn about bonds, commodities, forex, etc., but as of yet, I have practically zero experience/knowledge with those "financial products." Therefore, only for the USA region did I create initial placeholder tables that list some of the financial providers that I've encountered that offer that type of trading. Unfortunately, I do not have any experience with those (unlike the experience I've learned about stock brokerages), and I don't even know (yet) where to begin with creating columns of comparable data for those types of "financial products." Probably other persons know, but I do not know. Whenever I learn and begin to know enough to have some sense to populate the columns with useful comparative data, I will add those columns. Otherwise, if anyone else knows, those persons can too! And of course those "financial products" tables can also be prepared for each region as well. I only provided them for USA country for now, since I do not have enough knowledge to create a base set of columns for the tables in the USA region. After I figure it out, then those same tables can be reproduced for each region. Jasonkhanlar ( talk) 06:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

"You can also request the article to be moved into userspace or into draftspace, especially in the case of subjects that are not yet notable, but will likely become notable in the near future." - Help:My_article_got_nominated_for_deletion!#How_to_save_the_article / In the case that AfD is considered in favor of deleting, I would like to request for Wikipedia:Userfication such that any of the concerns addressed could be fixed until such a time that the article would qualify to exist as it is prior to userification. For example, the Wikipedia:OR concerns I would like to revise any parts that are deemed as OR so that those contents are contents that are researched previously by others who are citeably researched to document and publish those researches such that any of my own searching/researching is not the only original occurrence of such research. Jasonkhanlar ( talk) 07:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply