Talk:Value Line

from VfD:

Advertising. The first sentence also reads like a paraphrase of http://www.americancentury.com/workshop/articles/investment_ratings.jsp. RickK 00:50, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like advertising. Gsd97jks 01:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be advertising. --Randy 02:31, 29 Nov 2004
 * No Valueline Effect is part of Finance Stock trend Research. --[[User: Richard Myers}]
 * No the article should simply be Valueline Effect with brief discription of the effect, and its relevanance historically. *Save with Major Revisions' --[[User:Abe Wilson] ]
 * Keep - Valueline is one of the largest companies in the field and has pioneered an important equity investment strategy. It should have an entry. Except for the fact that it is incomplete, I see nothing wrong with this article. It is descriptive rather than persuasive, and as such, it is no more of an ad than any of the hundreds of other articles on companies. As for the acusation that it is a paraphrase, I think you must be reading a different article than I am because I don't see the connection. mydogategodshat 03:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Just being about a commercial entity does not make it advertising. VfD is not cleanup, if there are parts which are POV, fix them.  Value Line is an extremely well known company in the investing world (as the article itself says, "The valueline rating system has become so popular that it can influence the price of the stocks reported there-in").  Value Line is a 391 million dollar company .  I highly doubt they are adding articles to Wikipedia. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 03:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, Keep. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 03:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Looking like" advertising doesn't seem to be in the criteria for deletion. Dr Zen 03:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Duh. The article is now an article about a commercial entity and not an advertisement. The current version can be kept. RickK 05:11, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Duh, keep. &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intrigue 21:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look to me like anything has been removed from the original version. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 23:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: It's still an ad. I don't know why RickK changed his mind.  To me, it's still a come-on for a company, and it has exaggerated claims without verification.  Geogre 01:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Which claims do you think are exaggerated? Have you even heard of this company before reading this article?  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 06:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "The Valuline effect" is calculated by some people is a standard UFO/Nessy ploy. Yes, I have heard of it.  Don't make assumptions. Geogre 15:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now: do we have an article on the general type of entity of which it is an example? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * The mutual fund family is listed on List of mutual-fund families. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 06:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very strong keep. Value Line (this is the correct spelling) is a major info service for investors. I am going to make some changes. I am a brokerage analyst and I notice that Wikipedia has very few articles on finance and this needs to stay. --JuntungWu 12:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional. There could certainly be an article on Value Line, a notable service and/or publication, but this isn't it and this isn't the start of one. Delete it, make it a Requested Article, and wait for someone to write one. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that this is a major company which could have an article. But this is promotional and possibly erroneous. I know little of subject but googling alone provides: "Valueline pioneered the equity strategy that has come to be called value investing." Interesting claim, see . "Valueline Effect" no information found. The rest is worded like a company brochure.--Vik 07:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

blp considerations
I encountered an extremely derogatory article on one of the people involved, and editing by a person with very apparent COI, and have opened a discussion of it at the BLP noticeboard, at    DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The link DGG gave is wrong -- it should be Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive82. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Article needs to say what the company is and does today
An encyclopedia article on a public company should discuss products, services, current stock values, competitors, planned expansions, challenges faced, trends in the industry.

As it is, it spends far too much time on a cult of the personality for details on the founders with little relevance to the company today, and on the commissions fraud (which is presumably not ongoing). Both of these should be moved into a "history" section and trimmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.243 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Threat of lawsuit
Dear Stpatrick's11

I ask that you refrain from making threats. My intent is not to defame Value Line and it's majority owner, but rather to accurately describe the events as they continue to unfold. I have offered 3rd party citations whenever possible. I am more than willing to discuss any differences we may have here, so that an accurate record be kept.

I hope others with factual information regarding Value Line and its majority owner can join the discussion without fear of reprisal.

Thank you,

vlanalyst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlanalyst (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring
This section is verbatim from the FORM 8-K. --JAMillerKC (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)