Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic confidence model


 * 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   keep. causa sui (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Economic confidence model

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Crank economic theory, not notable except in relation to its creator Martin A. Armstrong. There appears to be one legitimate source (the New Yorker article), but that source really is about the creator of the theory, not about the theory itself. ArthurDenture (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ArthurDenture is obviously someone personally involved in the prosecution of Armstrong He ignores numerous articles covering this model all over the web, just the latest being in Barrons http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111904548404576397780966386382.html?mod=googlenews_barrons no less NewYorker Magazine This is someone intent on slandering Armstrong and trying to restrict the right of others with interest in cyclical theory This is a model that was requested even by the Presidential Task Force after accurately predicting the 1987 Crash and Armstrong was even invited based on this model by China in 1997 Even if ArthurDenture does not believe in the business cycle, he has no right to restrict others from learning about this aspect of the economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffen409 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

— 75.67.147.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It doesn't matter whether only one person in the world believes it works. It exists and therefore needs to be included in Wikipedia. To argue it doesn't work and therefore should be removed means that Elliot Wave and EVERY form of technical analysis should also be removed from Wikipedia. This deletion discussion is beyond stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.147.65 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

— Pablo Cruise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * For nearly 25 years I have followed this model and commentary on it as prominent features of international capital markets forecasting and analysis. Being a subject of seminars in major financial centres, commentary in respected journals, and keen interest from business and political leaders, surely attests to its validity as a Wikipedia topic. One person objecting to its inclusion when their objection clearly defies all facts is surely not a valid reason for deletion, is it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo Cruise (talk • contribs) 09:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ArthurDenture? With a name like that, how would anybody take him seriously. He is an idiot with an agenda, obviously...or, one of the corporate shills who attacked and tried to destroy this good man Martin Armstrong. It is people like him, that will ultimately destroy everything, they live for destruction. Don't assist them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.44 (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous comment moved from talk page - frankie (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

— 74.12.242.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Mary E: I am adding my comments here concerning the absurd censorship attempt proposed here! Of the millions of items discussed on Wikipedia why is this work by Martin Armstrong chosen for deletion. I propose that the effort to block our access to this information is Orwellian at best. Please do not delete this article or all will see and know this is not a place where freedom of speech and thought are respected. Why is Wikipedia afraid of an economic confidence model and the ideas it proposes? This leaves me with all sorts of questions about Arthur Denture and the brains or lack there of behind the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.242.183 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous comment moved from talk page - frankie (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

— 69.142.54.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This model was even taught at the Citadel in philosophy and his work has been compared to Hegel. Just search this model on the Web. It is talked about and interpreted by countless different analysts around the world. This is truly unbelievable that Wikipedia would allow one person to destroy the freedom of speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.54.95 (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The results provided by the news search alone are sufficient for this theory to meet notability. The article is in terrible shape, and needs a major cleanup in order to conform with Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research - frankie (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

— Karanjakinuthia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Economic Confidence Model should be taught in business schools around the world as a window to practical economics. Martin Armstrong's contribution to economic thought should be preserved for posterity. Please preserve the tenet of free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanjakinuthia (talk • contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

— LegalEaglePA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As a lawyer, I have looked at ArthurDenture's revisions to the contempt definition on Wikipedia. He removed fundamental citations from the Supreme Court that clearly are in conflict with the way Armstrong was dealt with in New York. ArthurDenture seems to stalk Armstrong and claims never before hearing about him, but then posts he will rewrite the complete Wikipedia page on Armstrong, asserts the Economic Confidence Model is only important to Armstrong who he calls a "crank" an then mentions elsewhere that Armstrong writes as he speaks in court. These are not words from an unbiased source who never heard of Armstrong. The only rational conclusion a jury would make is that indeed you were involved in the prosecution of Armstrong and it appears you are desperate to cover that up by silencing him and all others. There are several legal papers written on contempt that mention Armstrong and I have yet to find one that supports as being legal what was done to him. Perhaps they should be posted as well. This is not the Middle Ages. If you are indeed an officer of the court, your IP Address can be traced and you know you are opening yourself up to not just a lawsuit, but a disbarment. Why are you persecuting this man? Did you get paid to keep him in jail on contempt for more than 7 years when you know the statute 18 USC 1826 places a maximum of 18 months and the legal quotes you removed from Justice Scalia make it clear there is no inherent power to just throw people in prison. This whole thing smells very bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalEaglePA (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Anyone can edit, so feel free to help improve the contempt of court article. Most of the content that I removed was off-topic, but some of it could certainly be cleaned up, recast in a neutral POV, and reinserted. — ArthurDenture (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice you did not deny being involved in the prosecution of Armstrong since I fail to understand how you would know his manner of speaking in court unless you were there. ArthurDenture better look at the latest Supreme Court decision Turner v Rogers decided June 20, 2011 for it held that throwing a civil contemnor in prison denied counsel and resources violates due process. I know of no one in the legal community who thinks Armstrong was treated fairly being denied even the Fifth Amendment Privilege claiming it does not apply to corporate officers when indicted. There is no Supreme Court case that would justify that and this has never been done to my knowledge to anyone in American Jurisprudence since its inception. You better read http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf before you start writing anything to support your prosecution of Armstrong as being somehow just and fair. After Turner, I seriously doubt he would find it hard to bring in a lawfirm to overturn everything. Obviously, after the relentless attacks upon him that seem to be desperate attempts to cover up the total absence of due process of law he received in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalEaglePA (talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is removed from Wiki it will only serve to strengthen Martin's case. The man is a genius and deserves to be publicized. One day they will teach cycle theory in schools — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.113.46 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge. This could be merged in to Martin A. Armstrong's own article. I have read quite a lot of what he has published. His style is arrogant, unorthodox, and uncouth, however he does have a huge following and his forecasting is pretty good (although not perfect). He is notably very good on long term forecasting. So much so that it is difficult to ignore him. His model is mentioned on numerous commercial websites (meeting WP:GNG) and blogs of some pretty notable individuals (not that it matters). Armstrong himself is a controversial figure.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 00:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep/Merge with Martin A. Armstrong. (This EC'd with Nipsonanomhmata) There is a semblance of notability, but it's hard to tease out whether that notability is more related to the theory's creator or the theory itself. Nonetheless, the article is long, rambling, confusing, and does little to assert the notability of the subject on its own or adequately explain the topic in an encyclopedic manner. Having also looked at Armstrong's article (which also is in severe need of cleanup), I'm leaning toward the idea that both articles would benefit from being merged together, with Economic confidence model redirecting to a section in Armstrong's article, and with a lot of pruning being done to explain only the essential basics of the model. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Martin A. Armstrong. The real topic is the person not the theory. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2011 (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.