Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shift Theory


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Shift Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Here follows the result of my investigation. The topic of the article is a recently invented way to analyze FOREX data, named "Shift Theory" by its inventor. The same name and the more specific expression "Shift Theory Ratios" are used also to market a software product that implements such kind of analysis, which is sold through the official website. All the references that I've found online, mentioning "Shift Theory" and "Shift Theory Ratios" and related to the FOREX field are extremely new. An advanced search with Google shows that all the citations of the expression "shift theory" before June 2014 were not associated with FOREX or with financial analyses. In other words, the two expressions are WP:NEO. The only two web references in the article are primary sources because they point to the official website of the product. The article includes a reference to a book published in 1998 which, of course, has nothing to do with the topic but that contains accidentally the expression "Shift Theory" used in an unrelated context. All the hints point to a recently invented non-notable software and to a promotional activity. LowLevel73(talk) 04:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - 98 % original research, combined with 1 % spam and 1 % coat-racking for the spam. As points out, the only real citation is irrelevant. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete To he extent that I understand it, it seems to be OR.  DGG''' ( talk ) 08:15, 10 November 2014 (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.