Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other people's money

Add links
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 redirect to Milton Friedman. MBisanz talk 00:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other people's money[edit]

Other people's money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article claims that it is a famous Milton Friedman phrase. Article is unsourced, and I can't find any reliable sources backing the claims made. LK (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is essayish/has a long way to go, but it appears that the concept/term is wp:notable. Side note....the given reason for the AFD was sourcing for a particular claim in the article. That is not a reason for AFD. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Milton Friedman, whwere it cn be better put in context.TheLongTone (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You couldn't find the reliable sources that establish the notability of the concept? Uh, let me copy them from the entry and paste them here for you...
Let me know if you also require assistance reading them. --Xerographica (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I may have missed something, but as far as I can see not one of those attributes the expression "other people's money" to Milton Friedman. Most of them are links to Google book searches for the expression "four ways to spend money", but not "other people's money". Some of them are web pages in which people use the expression in reference to Friedman, but do not assert that he used it. One of them is a Google book search in a book which mentions Friedman, and in a different part of the book, also uses the expression "other people's money", but does not, as far as I can see, link it to Friedman. That looks, in fact, like the sort of result one would get if one were to make a Google books search for "other people's money" "Milton Friedman" and simply post any hit one found here, without bothering to check whether it was relevant. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether that is what happened, but it has produced the same effect. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the links cover the same exact concept...a concept which is notable enough to warrant its own entry. For some reason, there's been far more interest in the expression itself than in the concept. Wikipedia is not a dictionary...
Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history.
--Xerographica (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possibly followed by a Redirect to Milton Friedman) or Transwiki to WikiQuote). In order for this article to be on Wikipedia in this form, the quote has to be notable. The "lead" is incorrect; an article on the concept, using the term actually used in economics, with sources for the term used, should be in a separate article. Some of the "references" which you choose to quote here refer to the phrase or the economic principle — but the economic principle shouldn't be at this name. On the other hand, Other people's money (Friedman term) or Other people's money (Friendman quote) is likely notable. On the gripping hand, there's nothing presently in this article other than the actual quote which should be on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In regard the merge request; there's nothing here which should be on Wikipedia, but a redirect to Milton Friedman would not be out of line, whether or not deleted first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not clear that even Friedman used the quote to refer to government spending; it could refer to any organization which spends its members' (voluntarily or involuntarialy) contributed money. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been edited to attempt to refer to the concept, rather than the quote. The attempt is a failure, but it's clear that the merge options are now incorrect.
If you had actually read the reliable sources then you would have known that this article has always been about the concept. --Xerographica (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to read the sources to determine what the article is intended to be about. At least some of your sources were related to the concept, but there hadn't been anything in the article other than about the quote, at the time I made my initial comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did Milton Friedman use this phrase with the meaning asserted here? We don't know, because there's no source cited. Even if Friedman did in fact use "other people's money" as alleged, it would just take its place as one among the hundreds of pithy phrases which sprang from the ramblings of this prolific raconteur and onetime economist. As shown by the disambiguation link, this phrase has been used with various related meanings for at least 100 years in many contexts. A list of several of these uses was deleted from the lede by editor Xerographica in this edit[1] If in fact Friedman uttered this phrase, editors can evaluate the meaning, context, and notability of such use and decide whether it should be referenced in the Milton Friedman article. We don't have a separate article for every goofy remark of Yogi Berra. We don't write separate articles about particularly amusing celebrity Twitter tweets. Relevant content should be incorporated in the Friedman article, if appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are two issues for us. One is the evaluation of the phrase as part of the lexicon. In this regard there is the faintest glimmer of hope because the phrase was used as a title back in 1914, etc. The more important issue is about the use of one particular phrase that Friedman (and others) may have uttered when talking about the subject of spending taxpayers' money or government spending. In these articles, the views of Friedman et al. can be set forth. In these articles, balance can be achieved. Besides, how many other phrases have Friedman et al. written or uttered when talking about the subjects? Are such other phrases notable? Surely not. --S. Rich (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dr. Friedman can be quoted (with citation) in Government spending or some other article on the topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of three word expressions any more than it is a dictionary of single words. BigJim707 (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I agree that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is why the point of the article is the concept, rather than the expression itself. Are there enough reliable sources to support the notability of the concept? --Xerographica (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The concept (which is important) should be included in Government spending. -- BigJim707 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the concept isn't notable enough to warrant its own entry? --Xerographica (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. There, that was simple enough. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept is notable, but he seems to be one of the many people who have used it. Writing the article in this fashion is a quote farm, and and pretty much amounts to advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Writing the article in what fashion? It's a stub...with a relevant passage and some relevant reliable sources. I don't understand why you'd prefer to delete a notable concept rather than help to improve the entry. --Xerographica (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stub with an irrelevant "passage" and some sources, none of which relevance is established, and some clearly about a related (but not necessarily relevant) topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Related", "irrelevant"...all the sources cover the same exact topic. If you think that they cover different topics...then please explain what the different topics are. For example, is the topic of the book Scroogenomics relevant/related to Friedman's topic? --Xerographica (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per your example — they're clearly not the same topic, it would require a reliable source to say that they are related (using the "definition" in the lead), and I'm not sure how much more of a source would be required for relevance. If you had a real definition, or if it were specifically about the quote (although some of the sources provided predate the quote), then it would be related, but relevance would still need to be established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to find a RS that states that the opportunity cost concept is relevant/related to unused highway, bridge to nowhere and unnecessary war? --Xerographica (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Many of the connections are indirect, or only through other concepts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I need a RS to support the statement that there is an opportunity cost to spending taxpayers' money on a bridge to nowhere? --Xerographica (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate. Didn't look at the article, but it plainly would work as a disambiguation page if not worthy of being kept. We could redirect this to government spending or to taxpayers' money and perhaps other places as well, and the basic purpose of disambiguation pages is resolving multi-option redirects like this. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a disambiguation page...Other people's money (disambiguation). It just boggles my mind that the CONCEPT of critiquing how the government spends taxpayers' money isn't considered notable enough to warrant its own entry. --Xerographica (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, keep this page or move the existing disambiguation page to this title. If the latter, the two links I suggested should be added to the existing page. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It just boggles my mind that the CONCEPT of critiquing how the government spends taxpayers' money isn't considered notable enough to warrant its own entry Well, to steal from Wolfgang Pauli, that's not right, that's not even wrong. Hint: Government spending.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unremarkable phrase. The concept of Economic liberalism or critiques of Market socialism or Mixed economy are notable, but particular phrases used in such arguments (with rare exceptions, such as Invisible hand) are not. Likewise, I wouldn't recommend redirecting to any of those pages, nor to Milton Friedman, as the phrase is also used in other contexts – for example, in critiques of commercial business. Cnilep (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term and concepts have widespread coverage and use, grouped into two meanings. One is investment/loan related, the other refers to the concept that government makes poor or very different spending decisions because the decision makers are spending money that is not theirs. I did searches for the latter and there is a LOT of sourcing on it. Again, I think that this should be kept. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with DGG that other people said it first, and with Cnilep that it is an unremarkable phrase. I seem to recall Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man as something that could not be fixed, but it was. We may have to subject it to WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the phrase is unremarkable...which is why the topic of the entry is the concept...a concept which is supported by numerous reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Xerographica (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That you know how to use Google doesn't automatically imbue the things you find as support for your position. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there's a way to discuss this as some sort of important or noteworthy concept, it's not being done here nor am I seeing any sign of it being able to be done. Someone has confused an online encyclopedia with a soapboxing quote farm. And slapping a bunch of "See also" and Google-search-found links doesn't make it any more encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 31 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Other_people%27s_money&oldid=1073030750"