Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chong stock trading system

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chong stock trading system

Unable to verify, fails Google test with zero hits [1]. Besides which, the article reads a lot like an advertisement. --Alan Au 07:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• abstain. No google hits, but apparently not a scam. Some apparently sensible content. Mystifying. Robinh 07:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Last line of article reads "For more on the stock market, visit me at harrychong.com, just joking i dont have a website." --Alan Au 07:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it certainly does read like an ad. Apart from making us all rich, I don't see what good this article can do anyone. CLW 13:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think this guy will make us all rich, CLW. Karmafist 13:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Snakeoil - read a Random Walk down Wall St or, even better, a book on Markov Processes instead. Dlyons493 19:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like a reasonable test of Wikipedia. The test worked! — Phil Welch 01:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete You didn't search the only possible search but I tried both what you searched and adding the word stock before trading on Ask Jeeves Google and Yahoo and while I got some results all were here pages that ceased to exist or results that didnt have the word on the page just in the meta tags.--Shimonnyman 22:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Seems like a vanity/campaign, because links have been made to this by the same person. They should go when the article does. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete. I abstained above, just after the page was created but following the discussion it's clear that the page is, at best, original research. If it actually works, why does't the author use the method and keep quiet about it?

Robinh 08:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unverifiable OR. --Apyule 04:52, 22 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.