Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Povernomics

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Povernomics[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not notable. The term is not used in the social sciences. A simple Google search shows it. None of the references given in the article other than the commercial website povernomics.com include the word "povernomics". CronopioFlotante (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is suspicious. "Povernomics" seems to be trademarked by "Shanti, Sara Helene" (source). The user who created the page has a similar name, Adamshanti (contribs), and shows no other activity besides creating the article. Another new user with a similar name, Noahshanti (contribs) removed the unreviewed template (diff). CronopioFlotante (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty fishy, all together. My cat probably has more Google results. And as it's trademarked, doesn't that make it a... business? organisation? meaning it fails that notability as well? - BalthCat (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this has caught on. It reminds me of the guy who trademarked the word "billennium" (TM) to have exclusive rights to use it on all the merchandise he would sell as 2000 approached. I wouldn't be surprised if he's got a garage full of T-shirts with the word "billennium" (TM) on them. Might not have made any money, but at least he'll have clothes to wear for the rest of the billennium(TM). Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge What a surprise, the academic economist wants to suppress an economic philosophy that deviates from normative economics and the idea that more consumption is better. Seriously though, the article is actually very well written and properly referenced, which is more than I can say for a vast proportion of articles. The federal SAVE award submission appears legitimate suggesting this philosophy is beginning to gain acceptance (especially given the current financial atmosphere). While the similarity between names of the trademark holder and article creator seems more than coincidental, there is no indication of over-hyping, marketing, false promotion, spam, etc. Keep the article or at least merge it with other articles on non-normative/heterodox economic philosophies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.92.254 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why do you say that the article is properly referenced? None of the references even mention the word "Povernomics". CronopioFlotante (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge: The article is written in a neutral way and is not offering any commercial services or other marketing. The article may need additional references, but being Trademarked and having an entry created by family member does not preclude an entry discussing an economic theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.216.54 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC) — Anon editor's statement copied here from the article's talk page --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. The problem is that there don't seem to be any reliable sources on this new economic theory. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which statements specifically are unverifiable as the article currently stands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahshanti (talk • contribs) 00:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is more than just a statement not being verifiable. To be included in Wikipedia, a subject has to notable. And notability requires verifiable evidence. CronopioFlotante (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge: There is nothing "suspicious" or "fishy" about a posting by those most knowledgeable about the topic - in fact that is how the process is supposed to work. Notice that there was no attempt to hide behind obscure or vague usernames when posting the article - there are no hidden motives as Mandsford has suggested. Regarding BalthCat's comment: the number of Google results is an not objective measure of whether or not an idea belongs in an encyclopedia. Obscure knowledge and newly-formed paradigms still deserve to be disseminated. As to the second point, a trademark is not the same as a company or organization - trademarking the word Povernomics does not affect the merit of the Povernomical philosophy/practice (as 'A More Perfect Onion' pointed out). Regarding Mandsford's comment: The article doesn't even begin to suggest a profit motive here, and your comment fails to even touch on the technical merit of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahshanti (talk • contribs) 00:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'll agree that my wording was biased by the fact it was trademarked. Trademarks are often intended to derive profit. Editing Wikipedia about your trademarked concept (to derive profit) is a conflict of interest. If it hadn't been TM'd I'd probably have simply assumed it was someone's pet theory they were promoting, instead of a business model. Still not sure my wording was *wrong*, I'll have to think on that. I would also argue that once you trademark a concept, it cannot be widely disseminated and referenced. It's not like someone could publish a book called "The New Povernomics" without paying you, which means it's going ot be hard for you to establish verifiability with independent sources. In other words, it'll be easier to make it into notability as a "product" than as a "philosophy/practice." At least that's how I see it playing out, t hough I could be wrong. If this can be sourced I'll change to Keep. - BalthCat (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: BalthCat, thank you for reconsidering this. Regarding trademark law however, there is a Fair Use exception. The goal isn't to preclude people from using the term Povernomics -- anyone can continue to contribute to this theory by writing Whitepapers, Articles, blogging, books, etc. about it because a trademark (unlike a copyright) is only intended to identify source or origin. Whether or not this is an appropriate (from a public policy perspective) use of Federal Trademark law is a different matter, but it does not preclude dissemination and referencing. Adamshanti (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Adam Shanti[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No record of usage other than by the term's creator. This causes problems with verifiability, notability, and specifically WP:NEO. gnfnrf (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage of the term in any secondary sources, reliable or otherwise. This therefore fails WP:V and thus WP:N. With no uses in durably archived media that I've been able to find, this does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion at Wiktionary (wikt:WT:CFI) and so a transwiki would be a waste of effort. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since "povernomics" was not found in the references cited for the article, the article must be considered original research. Let us end this discussion as quickly as possible. There is no doubt that this article does not belong in Wikipedia.--Fartherred (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2009 (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.