Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich

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 debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich

Wikipedia is not an indistriminate collection of information. A bet between two scientists is not important enough for its own article. Notable only to fans of Simon or Ehrlich. Has sufficient coverage in those articles - delete KleenupKrew 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawing nomination and retreating somewhere to Eat Crow. Would not have thought a bet like this was notable but apparently it is. KleenupKrew 02:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom, and note that the article consists almost entirely of quoted material. Peyna 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm change my vote to abstain, but I'll still move for a cleanup. Peyna 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As arcane as this may appear to you, it is not arcane to those in the field. This was a substantive event and the conclusions drawn from the outcome of the bet is of regular interest to students and scholars alike. The article is well cited and by no means a stub. Additionally the topic contains far more information than would be appropriate as an insert into either or both men's articles. Kershner 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a genuine historical event, and a decently documented and footnoted one. As far as significance, I think the article does a decent job of expressing that in context. -Markeer 01:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant event that deserves an article. --Bduke 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be redundant to have a full account in both biographies. This is one of the more famous wagers in science, and very well known in the field of population, peak oil, etc. It is notable and verifiable. -Will Beback 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a layman (in political science and economics at least), and I've heard of this; it represents a significant empirical check to Malthusian "millenialism," so to speak, and seems worthy of mention. Choess 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes a bet between scientists is notable, such as the between Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne and John Preskill regarding evaporating black holes. Tachyon01 04:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Query I am not familiar with that particular bet, can you point me to an article that goes into greater detail on that subject? ... Point proven. :) (And I'm serious about desiring more information) Kershner 04:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could make it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's odd that there's no article on it, and it's only mentioned briefly in the John Preskill article. The only thing I remember is that Hawking was betting only as an insurance policy: he very much wanted black holes to exist, and figured betting against their existance would provide some minor consolation if they did not, in fact, exist. When Hawking admitted defeat (thereby accepting the existance of black holes) he awarded Kip a year's subscription to Playboy. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Found the article: Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet Kershner 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - My mistake: the bet I was thinking of was just between him and Thorne, and is mentioned in the Hawking article just below the one mentioned above. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't see any major problems with the article. David L Rattigan 08:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish Ehrlich would'vr stuck to butterflies. His scaremongering has done more harm than good. -- GWO
Keep, extremely notable, easily verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable historical event (anecdotally, I've even seen a blurb about this event in an economic textbook), but (rightly) contains too much detail to be integrated into the primary articles about the principal actors in the event. -- Docether 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (almost Conan-like) Keep. Notable only to fans of Simon or Ehrlich.? Notable well beyond that narrow spectrum; it was a significant prediction of the impact of 'Reaganomics' and the economic situation of the time, and culturally significant. Umm ... (calms down) ... also per above keeps. Colon el Tom 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, event is notable, verifiable, this topic is encyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable historical event. SJennings 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a notable event which people might actually want to research. —M e ts501^talk 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I'd be extremely open to a rename (Simon-Ehrlich wager, perhaps). This is a hugely notable bet. I saw a documentary about it in a geography course I took this term. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I second the rename. Kershner 19:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per Savisan. ~ trialsanderrors 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict?) Keep and rename. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per savisan. redfox 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Rename. Absolutely not fancruft as suggested by nom Bwithh 23:18, 6 June 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.