Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibsonian Economics

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 speedily deleted, CSD G11, could also be G3, hoax. As the admin who first speedy deleted this article after it was tagged by another editor, I'm closing this AfD because the text blatantly spans notions of the Invisible hand into something called Gibsonian Economics, but the latter is wholly unverifiable and hence, this is very likely someone's way of trying to promote either their own original research, or a take on Hume and Smith under another name. Moreover, this AfD is snowballing towards a deletion anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibsonian Economics

Not notable. Searching google produces only this article. Article is confusing at best, not notable at least. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CORP. A non-notable company. Schuym1 (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreated after speedy deletion as blatant advertising (of someone's original research). Whatever the user who started this article is trying to sell, I can't find anything meaningful on Gibsonian Economics and the sources given look very much like cite spanning. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Patent nonsense. Fletcher (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My brain hurts after reading that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per all of the above, and the fact that I had NO idea what the article was about after reading it twice ~Pip 2 andahalf 06:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I understand fully what the article is describing and the context in which it exists. (So speedy declined). The problem is notability. Has the term 'Gibsonian economics' achieved uptake within the literature? - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept being described is not nonsense. It makes perfect sense, and the theory may be correct. By the way, I don't think this article exists to promote a corporation or a book. The citations given are from the 1700s, so I don't think there's any conflict of interest or vanity/spam. If people doubt that the article is on a legitimate topic, we could ask an expert to weigh in. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the concept of the Invisible hand but, what "Gibsonian" theory? Whose theory? Who is Gibson? Who has written about this theory? A Google string search for Gibsonian Economics brings back one hit, this article. At most this is original research drawn together with a few citations which have nothing to do with "Gibsonian Economics." Gwen Gale (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2008 (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.