Talk:The Elliott Wave Theorist

Merger with Robert Prechter

I do not think merging this article with Robert Prechter is a good idea. This article is about a publication that is notable on its own merits; in the next several days I will make edits and include references that satisfy Wikipedia's standards. Thanks, --Rgfolsom 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article in its present state is indistinguishable from Prechter's work. Without him, it has no notability. This merger is long overdue, in my opinion. (You are of course welcome to prove me wrong.) --Orange Mike 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe this rewrite meets the general notability guideline, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," thus a merger with Robert Prechter would be inappropriate. I'll include the appropriate references, etc., shortly. --Rgfolsom 16:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrites are still showing the publication as Prechter-centric. This zine has no notability which does not radiate from its role as a Prechter vehicle. --Orange Mike 16:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A publication's relationship to its publisher or editor is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability guideline, which instead calls for significant coverage by independent and reliable secondary sources. For what it's worth, I will note that a written work is obviously separate and distinct from the writer who produced it, as in book vs. author. That distinction is arguably even stronger here, given that the Theorist comprises a body of work from multiple writers that spans three decades.

There’s more to do, but as is the article's recent rewrites and added references establish significant coverage by independent and reliable secondary sources. Short of a consensus to merge in the next few days, the merge tag should be removed. Thanks, --Rgfolsom 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The merge tag has been up 10 days, there is no consensus for a merge. See above regarding rewrites, added references, and Wikipedia's notability guideline. I'm removing the tag. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 00:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing "Performance" and "Current Forecast"

To include past/present forecast data is to invite bias from supporters/detractors. The BusinessWeek reference is a case in point: it's patently unfair to focus on nine select years when the publication has been in print for more than three decades. Then there's the more practical issue of keeping "current" forecasts current, which would demand updated edits at least once per month -- not a sound way to have a stable encyclopedic entry. Finally, this is a subscription publication -- each issue includes copyright stipulations that forbid "continuous and regular dissemination of specific forecasts or strategies." Rgfolsom (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)