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 keep. causa sui (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic confidence model

[edit]
Economic confidence model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crank economic theory, not notable except in relation to its creator Martin A. Armstrong. There appears to be one legitimate source (the New Yorker article), but that source really is about the creator of the theory, not about the theory itself. ArthurDenture (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 75.67.147.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Pablo Cruise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previous comment moved from talk page - frankie (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 74.12.242.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Previous comment moved from talk page - frankie (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 69.142.54.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Karanjakinuthia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— LegalEaglePA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Welcome to Wikipedia! Anyone can edit, so feel free to help improve the contempt of court article. Most of the content that I removed was off-topic, but some of it could certainly be cleaned up, recast in a neutral POV, and reinserted. — ArthurDenture (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you did not deny being involved in the prosecution of Armstrong since I fail to understand how you would know his manner of speaking in court unless you were there. ArthurDenture better look at the latest Supreme Court decision Turner v Rogers decided June 20, 2011 for it held that throwing a civil contemnor in prison denied counsel and resources violates due process. I know of no one in the legal community who thinks Armstrong was treated fairly being denied even the Fifth Amendment Privilege claiming it does not apply to corporate officers when indicted. There is no Supreme Court case that would justify that and this has never been done to my knowledge to anyone in American Jurisprudence since its inception. You better read http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf before you start writing anything to support your prosecution of Armstrong as being somehow just and fair. After Turner, I seriously doubt he would find it hard to bring in a lawfirm to overturn everything. Obviously, after the relentless attacks upon him that seem to be desperate attempts to cover up the total absence of due process of law he received in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalEaglePA (talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is removed from Wiki it will only serve to strengthen Martin's case. The man is a genius and deserves to be publicized. One day they will teach cycle theory in schools — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.113.46 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More