The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable original research, spam. Only references are articles by the author of the entry. Previously deleted as Market Dynamics. Editor discusses issues with previous version on the talk page, but there is still no reason to think this is notable or anything more than self-promotion. Hairhorn ( talk) 16:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Prior deletion was due to lack of references that were independent and peer reviewed. The submission was re-entered after such references were available (see article) from two peer reviewed journals. It seems that the notability requirements has been modified since the original submission to require a secondary source, which by current definition excludes publications by the editor which is considered the primary source.
The intent of the submission is not self-promotion as is indicated above. I believe the material is of interest and use to a wide audience.
If you believe the notability issue cannot be overcome despite of reputable peer reviewed articles, then a deletion is in order as suggested. Regards. Jdayanim ( talk) 15:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable original research, spam. Only references are articles by the author of the entry. Previously deleted as Market Dynamics. Editor discusses issues with previous version on the talk page, but there is still no reason to think this is notable or anything more than self-promotion. Hairhorn ( talk) 16:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Prior deletion was due to lack of references that were independent and peer reviewed. The submission was re-entered after such references were available (see article) from two peer reviewed journals. It seems that the notability requirements has been modified since the original submission to require a secondary source, which by current definition excludes publications by the editor which is considered the primary source.
The intent of the submission is not self-promotion as is indicated above. I believe the material is of interest and use to a wide audience.
If you believe the notability issue cannot be overcome despite of reputable peer reviewed articles, then a deletion is in order as suggested. Regards. Jdayanim ( talk) 15:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply