Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DMS Derivatives Market Specialist

: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 merge to Canadian Securities Institute. Although, the merge target is an unsourced article, badly in need of clean up itself. Now at least the text is all in one place to hopefully make one good article out of it Keeper | 76 00:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[:Derivatives Market Specialist]]=

{{la|Derivatives Market Specialist}}

  • Delete doesn't establish notability and appears to be advertising more then anythign else. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If you watched the creationof the previous page all the user did was copy and paste a university article on the course and it was deleted for copyright/ad vio Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Given the number of external links, I'd say that notability is not currently disproven. Only after vetting them and searching to see what's out there for the designation would I be willing to say it's not notable—and only if that search came up empty. Further, tone can be cleaned up. I don't see anything that warrants deletion over cleanup. —C.Fred (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The external links don't seem to mention the article subject, apart from York University. Doesn't seem enough. Disembrangler (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The entore article has been dfeleted several times because of that fact and copyright violition look at the user page, this page has been recreated 1-3 times (csd tags) so why would it suddenly be worthy of inclusion now? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It depends on the nature of the speedy deletion. Copyvio is easily fixed by rewriting in original prose. Spam is fixed by rewriting in neutral text. A7 can be fixed by asserting notability and providing a source to back it up. In general, speedy deletions don't predispose against inclusion of the subject (although a series of A7 deletes may lead to a page being salted, but that's another matter entirely).

    And yes, I'm the admin who removed Mr. Bucket's most recent speedy tag. It was for G11, spam; in reading through it, I didn't see text that was blatantly promotional. That's why I removed the speedy tag. I saw enough of an assertion of notability that I didn't put a {{notability}} tag on the spot. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Cleanup can take care of tone problems, otherwise seems notable by definition set out at WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - How long will Hell in a Bucket's delete tag remain. I don't know what are his credentials and education, but he is apparently misappropriating right of wiki's users for a factual information. Calling this page an advertisement only shows how much he is incompetent for the editor/admin role. HellinaBucket, take this as the warning before I blank out the page or delete your delete tag and report you to the wiki’s management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.166.14.237 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) — 199.166.14.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}
  • Let me help you out, file the report here wp:ani Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • that being said if 3 or for more come saying to keep I would urge you to look at wp:snow and ask for closure but as there is not a consensus and a disagreement this is what the AFD template is for, asking the community for their opinions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • you are incompetent for this job. Why do you think this page is an advert, and why didn't you put your credentials on your home page, as other editors did? Vlad wiki (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) — Vlad wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}
  • Your personal attacks are inappropriate. Please do not continue with rudeness.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What are your credentials for this job? Vlad wiki (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but the article doesn't meet the standards of wikipedia, what you are doing now is trolling wp:troll it is only taking away from your article, please calm down and let the thread do what it is supposed to do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • what are your credentials, and why is the factual information an advert? Why are you denying wiki's visitors to access a factual and verifiable information? Vlad wiki (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm done discussing this with you until you calm down, you have the link to take action with admin if you'd like if not flame away. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • no we haven't discussed anything at all. You just exercise and misuse your authority to block a page, apparently that feeds your ego because you are not able to give any meaningfull argument. Will you answer to my questions: what are your credentials, and why is the factual information an advert? And yes, I'll report you which will be only to the benefit of wiki and its visitors Vlad wiki (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • HellinaBucket has no more "authority" than any other WP editor. He/she has proposed deletion by the normal WP processes, which is now up for debate. Relevant Wikipedia policies include WP:Notability. Disembrangler (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am a heHell in a Bucket (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Canadian Securities Institute. This school is a privately-owned company and the designation DMS is not notable on its own by WP:NOTE. Also the current title is an inappropriate redirect as it's not even a proper title by our standards or likely search term. Drawn Some (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to a merge (which is really a subset of a keep result). I do think that, in that outcome, Derivatives Market Specialist should remain as a redirect. (As somebody else noted, the article title should be changed to a more standard/consistent naming.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I would also be unopposed to a merge into a main article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment also you guys chill please, there is no need for this sort of incivility. It leads to a poor outcome every time. Drawn Some (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge - notability of title not shown. Appears to be creation of one institute, so merge there. Disembrangler (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • it is a creation of one institute, just as the CFA or CFP are. So it is "notable" as much as they are. Vlad wiki (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Anyway guys, I'm out of here, wanted to contribute with the info to the general public, with no private interest in it whatsoever, but apparently here are clusters and pockets of local micro power present which are don't appreciate, not at all. I'm deliting my contribution. You know now of the designation so write about it if you want. Vlad wiki (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC) — Vlad wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Well isn't this a fine kettle of fish. The creator tried to blank the page, in the process deleting the AfD template, which got reverted by a Huggle user. Can we just G7 this now based on comments here and his (attempted) blanking of the page? Livitup (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Response to comment, Look again he didn't blank the page, he blanked the page then recopied the main content without the afd tag. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Response to response to comment Meh - Author's last edit was to add back in a fragment of the first sentence... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DMS_Derivatives_Market_Specialist&oldid=295388427]. Follow the whole history—he blanked, was reverted, blanked everything but a fragment of the first sentence, and was reverted again. I viewed that, based on his comment here, as an attempt to blank the page and he just didn't quite copy the whole thing. It was just an idea though... Livitup (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Closing administrators can read, everyone. There's no need for the boldfaced stuff. Uncle G (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Checkuser confirmed sock. J.delanoygabsadds 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, Above users only edits have been to vote "Keep" on AfD's, and remove ProD's. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am unable to find independent sources documenting this subject at all. The only documentation is published by the CSI itself, and since that documentation is full of blatant marketing puffery ("authoritative point of entry", "unique opportunity", and so forth) its use in a NPOV encyclopaedia is almost zero. As a non-independent source, it does not help to satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion, of course. There is no need to exercise the deletion tool. A redirect to Canadian Securities Institute, as Drawn Some says above and as per User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things, can be enacted by any editor using the ordinary editing tool. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete We have articles for certification programs like Microsoft Certified Professional, because it is an extremely widely-discussed course. I don't know of anything other than WP:GNG to gauge whether this course is notable, and I believe it fails that test. The references establish that there is a course, and that there are sites that want to sell the course to you. However, it has be notable for an encyclopedic article. A similiar article is Macquarie Global Leadership Program which is also up for AFD. Johnuniq (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge to Canadian Securities Institute per WP:PRODUCT: Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself. I don't see any good evidence of standalone notability. — Rankiri (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge Cleanup can take care of tone problems, otherwise seems notable by definition set out at WP:N.
  • Delete due to lack of coverage to satisfy notability requirements. See what Uncle G said above. Second choice would be redirect to CSI, with liberty to merge. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 18 June 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.