Talk:Altman Z-score/Archives/2012

Notability
The Altman Z score is one of the first measures professional bond traders use to evaluate a corporate bond. For stocks, it is similar to the financial strength ratings given by Standard and Poors. Deep value investing using Benjamin Grahmn like methods is quite similar to the Altman Z-score in using basic financial ratios as an automatic filtering tool to locate value stocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.211.131 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to be made
(It should be called "Altman Z-Score" - that is its name. Nclinton (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)) (I completely agree that this is thin - the Eidleman article itself does not measure its effectiveness. It simply claims a 72% prediction rate (over what period of time? using what data? which formulation of the z-score? etc.) Nclinton (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Why is this article called "Z-Score Financial Analysis Tool" while the first line says it's about the "Z-score formula for predicting bankruptcy", especially since a google search for the title produces no non-wikipedia results?
 * Why are the mentionned "[s]tudies measuring the effectiveness" not referenced? Where and how has the subject of the article "proven effective"?
 * For a good article, it might be valuable to know how the formulae given came about and what they actually mean, i.e. there should be explanations for the weight parameters.
 * It is absolutely not clear from the article why this particular "financial analysis tool" is notable enough to have its own wp article (I'm not saying it's not notable, just that its notability should be clear from the article) and how reliable it is compared to other bankruptcy prediction methods (especially random walk based ones). a.bit 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to edit the intro a bit to assert its noteability. doncram (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of the main description of the Z-score is taken directly from the Eidleman article cited - word-for-word - which is copyrighted. Nclinton (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good to point out. This article should be rewritten to avoid that.  The Eidleman article is still online at the URL given in the article (at http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/old/16641866.htm ), so it is still easy to identify what is copied from it.  I'm doing some other editing in the article to present the model and how it is estimated, hopefully in reasonably understandable terms.  I may need to add some other references.  After some further development of the article, I might be able to return and excise anything remaining that appears to be copyvio. doncram (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

German language version
See Altmanscher Z-Faktor. doncram (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Links to relevant tools
The wikipedia seems to continue as they have been populated by destructive people. You (Ronz) are the example of that destructive behavior... When you mark as spam the link to a FREE application. An application that everything, absolutely everything, has to do with the article. But as always, Wikipedia has people like you, who ward who can really make a positive contribution to the project. Please, be more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.153.41 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words:

http://www.associacaodeinvestidores.com/images/stockevaluation-zscore%282%29.JPG


 * Anyone have any policy-based arguments for keeping the comments above? They appear to violate WP:FOC, WP:AVOIDYOU, WP:BATTLE, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALKNO, WP:HARASS, WP:SOAP, and WP:SPAM. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

When we have a stupid and gross person on the other side, isn't worth the time and the effort to straighten what's wrong. If you want delete the useful link, ok... Isn't my problem... is your problem... is a problem to the wikipedia... The wikipedia loses... the community losses... You win.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.153.41 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And of course, you will try delete all the clues that show how your behavior is inappropriate. As always you'll be based on rules and more rules, in most contextualizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.153.41 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policies/guidelines for such links are WP:EL, WP:NOTLINK, WP:SOAP, and WP:SPAM. This link and the manner which it was added fails them all.

The relevant noticeboard is WP:ELN. Other dispute resolution methods are applicable as well, including WP:THIRD in this case. Until there is consensus for including the link, it should be removed per WP:ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed it per ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)