Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DTAFM


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DTAFM

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page is definitely violating the first of the five founding principle of Wikipedia for the following reasons :


 * The page is a marketing self promoting article written by the ATDMF company itself (namely Philippe Cahen), as confirmed by several phrases written in first person : "...on our specific tools" ; "With our 7 and 23 periods moving averages..."; "In our approach, volatility is measured by..."


 * Philippe Cahen’s "ATDMF" company (registered under n° B 519 926 737 - RCS Paris) does not meet any of the three notoriety criteria requested to qualify (It is a sole proprietor small business, not public, absent from any company ranking list, not subject to any independant research or publication)


 * Similarly, the education service marketed by Philippe Cahen under the name of "ATDMF" does not meet any of the two criteria requested by our charter : its name did not become a generic name, and it has never been subject to any independent research or publication.
 * The only publications found were books authored by Mr. Cahen himself and a few self promoting press releases.

We are facing here a hidden commercial advertising action, thus violating our rules.

This explains why sources or references have been missing for so long : there are none.

For the here above reasons, the page DTAFM is proposed for deletion, as already done as far as its French version. Deborah Abington (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Deletion discussion on fr.wikipedia is here for anyone who wants to see it. It's likely, I think, that our article is a translation of the French one. Deor (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and its result was delete: very weak notability, no secondary sources, has an advertising goal, and original research. (Notoriété très faible, pas de sources secondaires, article à but promotionnel et travail inédit) Comte0 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone's claimed method to make money in stock speculation.  Generously assuming that the method will not result in you losing your shirt, you know they aren't going to explain it in sufficient detail to actually operate it in a text being released under our free license.  Such articles are doomed by the conflict of interest of their makers to remain uninformative and promotional. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.