Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbados Group

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 Werner Erhard#Related organizations. Consensus of various suggestions, DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I searched in multiple databases and archival research sources - but was unable to find any reliable secondary sources independent of the article subject that significantly discuss the topic whatsoever. It appears the only sources that exist about it are either not-reliable, and/or not independent. Cirt (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As one of a number of outfits with shifting names apt to change, merge to Werner Erhard#Related organizations or to (say) Organizations connected to Werner Erhard (a rich field for research...). -- Pedant17 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content sourced to reliable secondary sources independent of the article subject that could be a candidate for a merge. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the multiple non-independent sources (from various directions -- Michael Jensen/SSRN, Erhard, pop-culture web-sites on Erhard) witness to the existence of the Barbados Group and to its nature. And note the several papers (and references to papers) published by the Barbados Group in Google Scholar: see this search-result list. The emergence of yet another differently-named front for the ideas of W. Erhard may suffice for mention in a wider context in a more general article. Note furthermore that primary sources have their uses -- as the Wikipedia WP:PRIMARY policy says: "a primary source may be used [...] to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". And since we have to deal with popular culture here, the Wikipedia reliable-source comments on this area may apply : "Articles related to popular culture [...] due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; [...] When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough for a brief mention somewhere? Maybe. Enough such that all the questionably sourced material in this article all needs to be kept in some fashion and merged somewhere else, when it is non-notable? No. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Merge. ~~Nobody~~ Almost nobody outside the Barbados Group seems to have paid them the slightest bit of attention. Fences&Windows 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from (for example) David Warsh in his somewhat nuanced/skeptical Economic Principals analysis/backgrounder article on the Barbados Group and its members at http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/07.04.08.html (retrieved 2009-09-11) -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an opinion piece, and self-published at that. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, a reliable source! I did some searching around and didn't come across it myself. I think it does count as a reliable source as the author is enough of an expert on economics. Still, there's not enough attention being paid to them to warrant a separate article, it can be stubbed and merged to one of the Erhard articles. Fences&Windows 08:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notice about this debate has been given at talk pages of WP:PSYCH, WP:BUSNS, WP:WPP, WP:EDU, AND WP:ORGZ. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per barbados group and cirt.--Judo112 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2009 (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.