Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unconventional Theories of Deindustrialization
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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partial AfD, listed but not tagged properly. This is a procedureal nomination, I have not read the article. Herostratus 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral as nominator.
CommentDelete Mostly original research and speculation based on blogs.But I am not completely sure this is not notable as a crank theory or cult. For instance, this Pentti Linkola guy seems influential in some circles, and he holds similar views.Some of the article could be cleaned up and used for Deindustrialization, but the "unconventional" blogcruft is not encyclopeadic. Leibniz 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment This article was originally listed under the title 'Deindustrialization'. It ignores a large and important literature on this subject by historians and economists, and refers only to a small number of speculative theories as if they were accepted facts or analyses. It certainly cannot serve as an encyclopaedia entry on 'deindustrialization', any more than a wholly homoeopathic account would be an acceptable entry on oncology. It does consitute a (sub-standard) essay on unconventional theories on this subject, but I don't think merits an encyclopedia entry.--Nmcmurdo 22:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems that the two sections 'Deindustrialization in the US' and 'Other examples of deindustrialization' are mainstream economic coverage. The sections 'Deindustrial revolution' and 'Industrial decomposition' are offbeat, but potentially important, contributions. The intro is a mixture of both. Perhaps separate the two approaches onto 2 pages, or clarify on a single page that the first part is mainstream and the second part is emerging ideas.--ekotekk 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV essay.--Peta 04:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am the original author - my entry was very short, began with what was essentially a dictionary definition and then listed three or so examples of urban areas that experienced significant industrial decline. There were a few helpful additions in the first year and since then it seems to have gone off the rails.
- Delete Deindustrialization is a worthy subject for an encylopedia entry, but we basically need to get rid of this one and start again. What next? Do a straw poll? I'm not an expert on the process! --Nmcmurdo 13:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is a process for this case. If the article started off OK and then went "off the rails", I suggest reverting to an earlier version, moving back to Deindustrialization and keeping an eye on "unconventional" edits, particularly by anons. Leibniz 15:32, 29 September 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.