Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Into The Market Oscillator (GITMO)


 * 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. JForget 14:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Get Into The Market Oscillator (GITMO)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:N. A theory posted at the blog of the creator is not notable without reliable, third-party sources discussing the subject in detail. Since there are no such sources, it should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This contribution cites the original publication of the GITMO oscillators at Seeking Alpha. The contribution is not about theory, but rather an applied real-world stock market ("equity market") technical indicator whose background is introduced, methods of calculation and parameter description are provided, along with observed computational results from applying the indicators to empirical data for the Standard & Poors price return index. Several citations are provided, with external links.

There really is no problem with the contribution in terms of the accuracy of the background information, soundness of mathematical approach, results provided (4 images), and accompanying interpretation. Significant effort was devoted to development of the empirical results provided in the contribution, which probably does not warrant deletion. If anything, wait a while to see what the growth in hits is.
 * You need to show how the subject matter passes WP:N, as my nomination makes clear. "how many hits the article gets" is not a claim to notability. Ironholds (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for guidance on notability. Regarding the original source, articles considered by Editors at Seeking Alpha are first submitted as an Instablog, hence the "blog" entry you referred to. Within several days, the original source will likely no longer be a blog, but rather an article focusing on economic issues.
 * Again, very interesting, but not something that passes our inclusion guidelines. If you want the article to be kept, you need to demonstrate that it passes. Ironholds (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Has received no attention at all in reliable independent sources, and almost none in general. 12 Google hits which turn out in many cases not to mention this at all. Fram (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete I can find no acceptable secondary sources. If it becomes notable, it will be time for an article.   DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2009 (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.