Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic totalitarianism (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the nomination was Keep. See page 10 of Milton Friedman's seminal 1962 work "Capitalism and Freedom" for his use of the term, which is introduces the core subject matter of the book. You can even read it online at a URL given on the talk page of the article. --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research Intangible 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This was kept on Afd in May- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_totalitarianism, when it was determined that this is not OR, but a term used by Milton Friedman among others. Nom advances no new arguments. --JJay 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was then determined that the article was deemed a copyright violation, not that it was not OR. Intangible 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See the second comment in the afD. The article also turned out not to be a copyvio, which is why it's still here. --JJay 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the fact that the article is not neemed a copyvio now, does not mean that back then there was a consensus that the article was not Original Research. Intangible 23:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is the comments from the previous AfD stand. You have made no case or argument for why this is OR. Please explain why "economic totalitarianism" gets all these very consequential hits from serious publications in google books: around 90 hits in Google books. --JJay 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See the second comment in the afD. The article also turned out not to be a copyvio, which is why it's still here. --JJay 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was then determined that the article was deemed a copyright violation, not that it was not OR. Intangible 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. -- Nikodemos 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Article incorrectly listed before this time - the first nom was included in the log for 6 July. Fixed now.GRBerry 01:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Afaict, still copyvio, still unsourced original research, still questionable provenance. If no one adopts this within the coming five days and turns it into a viable article, it has to go. ~ trialsanderrors 02:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per Trialsanderrors. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete original reaserch. 72.139.119.165 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above; the talk page makes it clear that the article is original reasearch. --Muchness 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article is not currently referenced, but the claim that it's original research is not supported by prior AfD logs or any comments here. If this was not used rarely in economics, as has been claimed, that should be verifyable. Verifying that is a prerequisite to the restated claim of original research. This nomination is flawed until/unless the OR claim is substantiated. Though it should be properly referenced, lack of references is not a valid reason to delete. Closing admin is recommended to review whether OR claim has been substantiated in the discussion; if not, it should simply be closed with no action when it times out. Georgewilliamherbert 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The claim of OR is supported by the editor responsible for the article's content (68.19.116.130 (talk • contribs)), who has stated that the definition "was derived BY MYSELF several years ago in response to questions relating to my use of the term in various discussion forums, and in an essay authored by me which may be found at http://www.geocities.com/brittone/eco.html"; in other words, it is sourced to a self-published essay and reflects one editor's coinage and definition of a neologism. If the term exists independently of the editor's usage as a notable, verifiable term, an article can be created to reflect that usage, but as trialsanderrors says, unless someone rewrites this as a viable article, it should be deleted as OR.--Muchness 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JJay - this is NOT OR, it's an economic term that's been in use for decades, the only thing the original editor likely 'derived' by himself is the particular string of words s/he used to explain the concept. (Which is exactly what an editor is supposed to do, as the alternative would be copyvio, no?) See Capitalism and Freedom for example. Arker 01:06, 11 July 2006 (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.