Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalar Analysis (Finance)
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Scalar Analysis (Finance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Definitely fails general notability. NoyPiOka (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The user who created this is currently blocked, but here is their reply to the notification of this discussion:
Hello, my name is Ramoncito Ulep. I am the individual who created the topic "Scalar Analysis (Finance)". I created it because it is a publication I made. Albeit self-published, I was assuming that because Wikipedia has accepted my notable contributions to the music industry in the Philippines and included my own name as a Wikipedia topic, the organization would also recognize my published work citing Wikipedia itself as a "reliable source" of reference.
- Not good. Although I usually prefer to see actual words used in deletion discussions instead of just links I have to agree with the nomination and will add WP:VSCA as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:NOR and WP:GNG. Given the note above, probably the same editor's other contributions need to be checked as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - definitely OR, and appears to be self-promotion/COI as well. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2013 (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.