Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Build a living economy

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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Build a living economy[edit]

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

Asking for deletion as unencyclopeadic nominated as a7 however this is a "concept" so it didn't apply. Asking for deletion as not notable Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability or influence of this particular concept isn't established by the article's one source. Circumspect (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to refer to specific project of Alexandra Hayles et al. It is the subtitle of an article[1] but doesn't seem to have wider notability as a concept. The sole reference[2] doesn't mention building a living economy. There may be scope for an article on Hayles, or on the concept of a living economy, but on a quick search nothing appears obviously notable. Conclusion: Wikipedia is not for promoting a project, however worthy, and can only describe projects that are already widely discussed and notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this concept has general notability, rather than just being a phrase used by one author in one book. In fact, it could perhaps be a speedy deletion, as the article seems to exist to promote the concept. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteJust a big ad.Perhaps become section on books or author's pages, if they exist. Assistant N 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assistant N (talk • contribs)

Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources, very promotional in nature. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:36, 10 December 2012 (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.