Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chartered Wealth Manager (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Aside from the sock puppets, the consensus here is obvious. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Wealth Manager

edit
AfDs for this article:
Chartered Wealth Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of deleted material; G4 speedy deletion denied because present article is not close enough to deleted version. This is still the product of corporation, the product itself failing to be notable except in discussions of the corporation (there is a Wall Street Journal article that lists this among other dubious credentials awarded by the corporation). It is still just as non-notable as it was before. The article as written clearly suffers from advertising problems, but even once corrected there is still the problem that Wikipedia is not a product catalog. RJC TalkContribs 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Do not delete because the CWM from the American Academy of Financial Management appears to be globally referenced in a multitude of 3rd party sources and considered legally famous. After review, this new CWM article has 17 or more new book, regulatory, and governmental references just for the US and English Market. The Famous Investment Dictionary & Reference Guides also contain the CWM from AAFM. Chartered Wealth Manager See Investopedia,Forbes, Wall Street Journal Guide and also the FINRA Governmental regulatory guide. AAFM and the Chartered Wealth Manager was also clearly a featured program with Wharton NYU and others in the Oct. 2004 Wall Street Journal Article on the Wealth Management Profession. Just Reviewed the 50+ Citations, Sources and links at: Chartered Wealth Manager and American Academy of Financial Management The AAFM and CWM program has been disclosed and listed in the NASD and now FINRA for over 6 years which is easily verified on the Archive.org

    Wiki already includes other company and corporate awarded designations and credentials such as CFA, CFP which are not government issue or sanctioned. CFA and CFP are registered & profitable corporations. After analysis, the AAFM USA CWM program has always required accredited government recognized education as stated in all 3 Wall Street Journal articles about AAFM. After a review of the US government recognized and CHEA recognized AACSB and ACBSP, it appears that any group that requires double accreditation is mandating the highest educational standards in contrast to any other programs. The WIKI articles also shows the CWM program being offered by ABA accredited law school programs with verifiable links.

    7-10 Years ago, I may have voted to delete, but at this time, there are expansive global references, support, government citations, and so forth along with verifiable press from the big names globally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorlaw (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — Doctorlaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: This user has been blocked for sockpuppetry; (case).[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Comment. Not one of the many citations suffices. The WP:TL;DR version of this is that the citations show that the CWM exists, but not that it is notable, any more than being listed in the phone book suffices for WP:BIO. The citations are directories or passing mentions. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a product catalog.

    Citation one does not "feature" the certificate, but mentions it once on a table with other newly created certifications of questionable value. Citation two does not "feature" the CWM, but rather repeats information from the AAFM's website as part of a directory; see WP:LAUNDER. Citation three is again a directory entry, and does not even mention the CWM; it and citation four are from Investopedia, which again just repeats AAFM press. Citation five establishes only that a trademark has been filed. Citation six lists the CWM as one of many designations that its law degree counts toward (reciprocal puffery: this is an online law school). Citation seven is not a book about the CWM, but rather a book that has the CWM listed once on a table in Appendix C. Citation eight is identical with citation four. Citation nine establishes that another trademark has been filed. Citation ten is again not a book on the subject, but rather a book that has a directory. Citation eleven is just the homepage of the online law school. Citation twelve is not a book on the CWM, but again a directory that lists it. Citation thirteen is identical with citation six. Citation fourteen is not a book on the subject, but a book that lists the CWM only once in a long list to demonstrate how many financial certifications there are (the book's point is that most certifications are bogus, but it doesn't even discuss the CWM in detail). Citation fifteen is just a link to the AAFM's website. Citation sixteen is just a directory, as is citation seventeen.

    Not one of these, incidentally, is from Forbes, despite the assertion that Forbes has "featured" it. None of these is a "feature." This is outright mendacious. Verizon has not recognized me to be a leader in my field because it lists me in the phone book. RJC TalkContribs 15:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notable.

    The Wall Street Journal Featured the AAFM CWM in 2004 with Wharton NYU and others. See Article [1]

    By the Way Forbes Owns Investopedia [2] .... [3]

    WSJ also references in their Credential Guide various AAFM Certifications and notes their FINRA inclusion. [4] CWM etc.

    Also notable in FINRA [5]

    What is the motivation? RJC has already used the descriptive words of bias including: Dubious, Mendacious, and Bogus to describe this article and AAFM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordiang (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) NOTE: This user has been blocked for sockpuppetry; (case).[reply]

  • Keep This Famous Article
  • Citations and correction to above Cite 5 & 9 Establishes that the trademark is registered, approved, and protected by the US Government The two citations referenced above are labeled REGISTERED with US Government as Trademarks when the public user clicks the link below.

    AAFM Registered Citation five

    CWM Chartered Wealth Manager Citation nine

  • Finance Dictionary

    The independentn reference works of: Investopedia, FINRA and the Wall Street Journal guide to professional designations reference AAFM & the accredited education and assessment required for these credentials such as the AAFM CWM Board Certification. WSJ Guide to AAFM [6] Designation Guide for WSJ

  • References and Press

    Press from the US and International recognize the Standards of AAFM and the CWM certification along with the FINRA Governmental Regulatory SRO [7]FINRA

  • Delete per RJC's comments and nomination. I hope the certificate awarding body has better typing than the supporters here. I get a whiff of socks, too. WP:SOCK for those that don't understand what I mean. Peridon (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and Another Correction to Above Certificate Socks CFA, CFP, AAFM only offer Board Certification and Charters AND DO NOT offer any training certificate or academic diplomas. The AAFM Standards Board has never offered any degree or diploma but rather sanctions and registers government recognized and accredited programs as a path to certification. The 500 AACSB, ACBSP and ABA Government Accredited Schools offer Degrees and Diplomas in which the AAFM recognizes these programs. See AACSB and ACBSP or ABA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordiang (talk • contribs) 19:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC) NOTE: This user has been blocked for sockpuppetry; (case).[reply]
  • Keep this article - I do not want this article deleted. This article falls, non-exclusively, under the Guidelines WP:Academic and WP:Company Education. Educations is offered by many accredited academic institutions, including mine, for eligibility for this certification (as well as other certifications listed by Wikipedia). This particular certification is listed on the FINRA website under professional designations, and several other prominent industry websites including Investopedia. The board of standards that issues it is listed on the US Department of Labor website as well as I recall on the California Department of Labor website. The certification is offered in many countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and in North America. Naturally, as with any certification, degree, or academic institution, one will find supporters and detractors when searching online. If wikipedia chooses to lists certifications, degrees, and academic institutions, which I note wikipedia lists within these categories, then it should not discriminate in favor of some certifications, degrees, or academic institutions over other ones. Such competitive brand discrimination will lead to wikipedia losing its academic freedom and becoming just another competitive marketing blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamByrnes (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — WilliamByrnes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: This user has been blocked for sockpuppetry; (case).[reply]
Quite right. Wikipedia shouldn't become "just another competitive marketing blog". I'm sticking to Delete. Peridon (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those guidelines regard notability, the first for persons, the second for organizations; neither speaks to certifications. The appropriate guideline would be WP:PRODUCT, which states, "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy;" this is not the case with even the longest version of American Academy of Financial Management. To be notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia, a topic must receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Notability, moreover, is not inherited, meaning that AAFM's notability does not make its certifications notable. While your school may advertise itself as being acceptable to the AAFM for CWM certification, this does not itself make the CWM certification notable. Many degrees more widespread than the CWM do not rate their own articles. For example, there is no article on joint JD/Ph.D. programs, joint computer science/electrical engineering programs, etc. Nor does a product's being sold internationally, even in great volume, make it notable. So, Wikipedia does discriminate among products and services, based on whether they receive enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline. RJC TalkContribs 14:47, 27 October 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chartered_Wealth_Manager_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1222061116"