Todoto

Change of user name?

Are you the same editor who previously used the name Fis steel? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

James, I am indeed the same editor. I feel that the page you have deleted was unfairly purged. By the last edit it contained useful factual information with regards to steel derivatives. These are an important financial tool to many investment banks, commodity houses and the like. The page would have been an interesting encyclopedic addition to further Wikipedia's cover of financial derivative products. Please could you explain the basis for your decision so that I can rectify your concerns? Best, Todoto (Talk) 19:11, 17 November 2010 (GMT)

The article, in all its forms, gave prominence to links to pages about the launch of steel swaps contracts by LCH.Clearnet in conjunction with FIS, giving the impression (perhaps wrongly) that it was written to promote those. I am sure that it would be very easy to write the article without giving that impression. However, before you put time and effort into doing so, I think it is only fair to warn you to carefully check the guidelines on notability and reliable sources. I have known many new editors who, finding that their first efforts are deleted because they seem promotional, put a good deal of work into rewriting them, only to find they are deleted again because of lack of notability. I don't know how well steel swaps satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, but a quick Google search did not look promising. Most of what I found consisted of pages from FIS or LCH.Clearnet, press releases, Wikipedia, etc, which is to say sources which are either not reliable or not independent of the companies or organisations involved. If steel swaps are a well-established concept with sufficient notability in Wikipedia's sense to justify an article on the subject then it should not be difficult to find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. If, on the other hand, the concept is a new one which has not yet received substantial or widespread coverage, then it does not qualify for an article under Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Finally, if you have a personal involvement in the subject, for example if you are employed by a company or organisation which is involved, then you have a conflict of interest and probably shouldn't be editing on the subject at all. If the subject is notable then someone from outside is likely to write an article about it sooner or later, and is more likely to do so in an objective way than an insider. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)