Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staegr


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Staegr

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable commercial product, no significant independent sources Deltahedron (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. weakly. The only news source I've found for this stock market metric is the website of the coiner: This is where STAEGR™ enters, a new test I developed for my investment software Conscious Investor.  There are book and Scholar hits as well: they all share the name of the coiner, John Price.  The title should apparently be STAEGR.  That writer trademarked the term and uses it to sell software that embodies his stock trading method.  I don't see anyone else using the term; the "glossary" page cited points back to him as well.  Non-notable neologism that's apparently intended to sell something. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I added two external links: I believe the term is in quite common use in value investing. Jpnow (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is needed for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mere mentions in news items are not enough.  A masters thesis is not usually considered a suitable source: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP  Deltahedron (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete Not a dictionary and there are no reliable sources to show notability yet DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper  |  76  19:17, 21 March 2013 (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.