Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic confidence model: Difference between revisions
→Economic confidence model: added two comments from talk page |
→Economic confidence model: Caution against canvassing |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:{{la|Economic confidence model}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic confidence model|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 3#{{anchorencode:Economic confidence model}}|View log]]</noinclude>) |
:{{la|Economic confidence model}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic confidence model|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 3#{{anchorencode:Economic confidence model}}|View log]]</noinclude>) |
||
:({{Find sources|Economic confidence model}}) |
:({{Find sources|Economic confidence model}}) |
||
{{Not a ballot|1=[http://ppinternational.goldtent.net/?p=71655 a blog post] asked you to}} |
|||
Crank economic theory, not notable except in relation to its creator [[Martin A. Armstrong]]. There appears to be one legitimate source (the New Yorker article), but that source really is about the creator of the theory, not about the theory itself. [[User:ArthurDenture|ArthurDenture]] ([[User talk:ArthurDenture|talk]]) 17:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
Crank economic theory, not notable except in relation to its creator [[Martin A. Armstrong]]. There appears to be one legitimate source (the New Yorker article), but that source really is about the creator of the theory, not about the theory itself. [[User:ArthurDenture|ArthurDenture]] ([[User talk:ArthurDenture|talk]]) 17:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 17:54, 4 July 2011
- Economic confidence model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
 | If you came here because a blog post asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
Crank economic theory, not notable except in relation to its creator Martin A. Armstrong. There appears to be one legitimate source (the New Yorker article), but that source really is about the creator of the theory, not about the theory itself. ArthurDenture (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
ArthurDenture is obviously someone personally involved in the prosecution of Armstrong He ignores numerous articles covering this model all over the web, just the latest being in Barrons
no less NewYorker Magazine This is someone intent on slandering Armstrong and trying to restrict the right of others with interest in cyclical theory This is a model that was requested even by the Presidential Task Force after accurately predicting the 1987 Crash and Armstrong was even invited based on this model by China in 1997
Even if ArthurDenture does not believe in the business cycle, he has no right to restrict others from learning about this aspect of the economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffen409 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether only one person in the world believes it works. It exists and therefore needs to be included in Wikipedia. To argue it doesn't work and therefore should be removed means that Elliot Wave and EVERY form of technical analysis should also be removed from Wikipedia. This deletion discussion is beyond stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.147.65 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
For nearly 25 years I have followed this model and commentary on it as prominent features of international capital markets forecasting and analysis. Being a subject of seminars in major financial centres, commentary in respected journals, and keen interest from business and political leaders, surely attests to its validity as a Wikipedia topic. One person objecting to its inclusion when their objection clearly defies all facts is surely not a valid reason for deletion, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo Cruise (talk • contribs) 09:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
ArthurDenture? With a name like that, how would anybody take him seriously. He is an idiot with an agenda, obviously...or, one of the corporate shills who attacked and tried to destroy this good man Martin Armstrong. It is people like him, that will ultimately destroy everything, they live for destruction. Don't assist them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.44 (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Previous comment moved from talk page - frankie (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Mary E: I am adding my comments here concerning the absurd censorship attempt proposed here! Of the millions of items discussed on Wikipedia why is this work by Martin Armstrong chosen for deletion. I propose that the effort to block our access to this information is Orwellian at best. Please do not delete this article or all will see and know this is not a place where freedom of speech and thought are respected. Why is Wikipedia afraid of an economic confidence model and the ideas it proposes? This leaves me with all sorts of questions about Arthur Denture and the brains or lack there of behind the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.242.183 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Previous comment moved from talk page - frankie (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)