Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durvexity

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 February 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. The statement - "This is a new phenomenon that merits attention", sums up the problem. Unfortunately, as was pointed out, there are no sources that establish notability and none were added during the discussion. Arguments that "this is interesting" or "I've come across this at my work" can't be counted. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durvexity

Just a little history to put things in context. I happened across this article a couple of weeks and dropped a more references tag on it, as well as dropping a message on the WikiProject Economics and Business talk pages. And then I admit it droppped off my radar. The term is used on the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009 and the Lehman Brothers articles and seems to have passed without comment; apprently it is "the duration of the interest-rate yield convexity curve that effectively measures the sensitivity of the price of a fixed income investment to the rate of change of the yield." Perhaps there is such a concept and perhaps it has a name, but the problem I had with the article then and now is that the one source offered does not use the term, and apart from Wiki-mirrors and blogs that quote Wikipedia articles, there seems to be no usage of the word that I can find. This AFD should have input from those more expert on the subject to be safe, and I will happily withdraw the nomination if someone can show usage in reliable sources prior to the terms appearance here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to delete. Looks like original research. Solar Apex (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It looks like a write-up based on an external source. It might not be a well-known concept, but surely that makes it all the more suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Lawdroid (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just 1 source. The concept is interesting though. Solar Apex (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some ghits. An element of notability might lie in the connection between this sort of pseudo-statistical pseudo-mathematics and the mess the financial world has unleashed. (They couldn't factor in the human element and ignored it...) Peridon (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm getting the same ghits, and there are more than in early January, but the problem is that all of them lead back to Wikipedia. Obviously sites that mirror Wikipedia are appearing, and then there are the blog entries which lift sections straight from Wikipedia. What isn't appearing, and what should be, is usage in news stories or other reliable sources. There are absolutely no mentions on Google News, for example, or on Google Scholar. I suppose I have to say that I have been wondering about the edit history of the article and the linkage within Wikipedia. I better point out first that there are technical and style edits to the article which are beyond reproach, but the substantive edits to the article seem to be associated with single purpose, or near single purpose accounts, and edits that link other articles to the Durvexity article are similarly of the same style. Yes, the term has remained unchallenged on a couple of articles, but I am going to stick my head over the parapet here and question the authenticity of this article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a...proliferation of street terms and peculiar terms in finance (which a person studying economics could go a lifetime and not know). I can't say that this one is or isn't used, and if it is, that it merits an article. but searching for it will be complicated. I'll check back over the weekend. Protonk (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can judge from my limited knowledge in mathematics and economomics, durvexity is just some sort of derivative (calculus) of bond convexity across time. I find the lack of sources suspect as to it being an established concept, academically or otherwise. Judging from the first edit, it seems to be piece of jargon for traders, a shorter way of saying "duration of bond convexity"; Searching for that phrase (on google scholar) does yield a substantial amount of results not connected to wikipedia. Perhaps this article sould be renamed Duration and Convexity of Bonds, or merged with Bond Convexity or Bond Duration or maybe they should all be merged together..... ¨¨ victor falk 08:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps all deleted? Peridon (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite possibly a term in actual use by analysts or by hucksters, but no “reliable sources” establish “notability”. —SlamDiego_←T 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I might not call this a hoax, but it's at least a non-notable neologism. Google's not god, but 0 Gnews hits, 0 Gscholar hits and 0 Gbooks hits kind of speaks for itself. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bond valuation along with Bond Convexity and Bond Duration. Mystache (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because you've never heard of it means it doesn't exist? This is a new phenomenon that merits attention. There is a plethora of Wall Street jargon that never makes the news because it is short-hand for more explicative terminology, but durvexity is a troublesome occurrence. I stand behind my research, and hope to have it published in the coming year. Bringing attention to it only serves to increase the transparency between market participants and market makers. RiccoBenardio (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your message on my talk page (diff for future reference) and the above comment: in common with other encyclopaedias, the problem is that Wikipedia is neither a forum nor a repository for innovative ideas and research; on the contrary, it is a repository of the banal, in the sense that ideas must have been scrutinized, debated and kicked around in the outside world and it is the result of that discussion, suitably sourced, which (ideally) makes its way onto Wikpedia. So that leaves the question: is the article or the bulk of it original research? And if the term has become a buzzword on the trading floor, surely there must be some reliable source somewhere to say that, unless it is the most fleeting of neologisms. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wall street jargon, especially new jargon, deserves explanation. I wouldn't object to merging it with bond valuation, however this article has grown to be long enough for an article in its own right. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We use the term regularly around the office, traders we talk to are definitely aware of. Not sure benefit/disadvantage of merging - never quote me on wikipedia etiquit. CrissAhrens (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not eraseI work at a top international bank, yes one of the solvent ones, and this is standard terminology used in pricing option products. I think it was originally derived from Bear Stearns or Natixis. While I'm just a salesman and not an expert on the exact derivation behind it, it refers to the tweak that the top wall st. traders added to the basic black scholes option pricing theory that adjusts for the discrepencies in the black scholes model when there is severe market turmoil. We saw a similar thing happen for CDS basket option models where the pricing models shifted from using standard copia to studentT copia to compensate for non standard distribution. Both of those actually turned out to be incorrect and probably should have taken into account a similar durvexity component. Rumors are that several major banks' option desks demise was due to their lack of valuing the durvexity componant of option pricing. This sounds like a conspiracy by "whitey" to supress independant thoughtDaaron Cohen (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2009 (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.