Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Price Theory: Economics is Mistaken

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 keep. Enough sources for notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Price Theory: Economics is Mistaken[edit]

Price Theory: Economics is Mistaken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no clear evidence that the book is notable. Interviews with the author are normally public relations, not substantial independent source . WorldCat lists it as just published, with no holdings [1]. Of course that can be deceptive for a non-US book, but The National Library of Mexico catalog does not list it at all [2] nor under any form of the title or author I could devise. (I note the heading of the article is incorrect: the book has not been published in English.) See also the following AfD on the Author DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Following, I am posting the opinion of Wikipedia professional editors, backed by Wikipedia itself who had positive views about my article and recommended me to move this article into mainspace. The first one approved of the subject matter, but recommended external sources, (which Wikipedia doesn't have a mandatory preestablished number of them) The second one, recommended to put the article into mainspace and the third one was surprised by the editor who established the article (about the author) for deletion. I would find really serious and unfortunate that Wikipedia’s recommended editors wouldn’t have the criteria to establish from the beginning that the subject matter was irrelevant.

[17:57] <+CharlieEchoTango> iNeedHelp00, you'll need to show that there is significant coverage of the book in third-party publications[17:58] <+CharlieEchoTango> and use book reviews to back the information you provide, not the book itselfHi. What do you think of my article now? FC 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC) —

I think it very well written now, the tone is correct, it is properly styled. You could probably move it to mainspace now. Best,Alpha Quadrant talk 23:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I just declined your CSD. Was there something I missed? Please let me know. --Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC

The book appears in the Library of Congress on Line Catalog, since it was an American publishing house the one who published it in Spanish. FC 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Evaluating articles with sources in foreign languages is inherently difficult. I see a reception section with a couple of refs from mainstream Mexican media (mainstream media interviews with the author of a radom book are not common in the US, maybe they are in Mexico?). That would indicate WP:NBOOK #1 is satisfied, but who knows? The topic is ostensibly not a national one, but an international one, so we'd expect that if this is more than a WP:FRINGE theory, the book will be noted by some English sources as well. My main concern right now is that a WP:NPOV article on this is impossible, but that's often the case with newly published controversial books. (As another example, Anatomy of an Epidemic was even put up for WP:DYK in a form that was basically an WP:ADVERT--hardly a critical commentary because the book was too new. This stuff often happens when a book/author has fans editing here.) Tijfo098 (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have included more sources, there are 4 serious periodical and journals' articles and reviews about the book itself plus 2 international electronic interviews) plus several other articles about the author’s work, apart from the book. In addition, the sources either suggest or literally express, “ the book’s value resides in that it could be setting the basis for the development of new theories that could modify economic science.” I don't state it as clear, not to break the neutrality issue. There are many elements, according to Wikipedia's demands to prove notability. FC 21:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep .- 20 verifiable, reliable, 3rd party sources provide notabilitySmithsonian (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reception section list notable media that has covered it. If it has only been released under its Spanish name, that should be the name of the article though. Dream Focus 19:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fringe theory with no credible references other than those stating it exists. MLA (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is not based on Wikipedia’s policies. Please clarify and list, which sources aren’t credible, according to your opinion. FC 00:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment yes my comment is based on Wikipedia's policies - the standard for inclusion is not verifiability. Interesting that the author of this fringe theory book was considered insufficiently notable for Wikipedia and so the article was deleted. MLA (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask Wikipedia to omit deletion proposal. I find this entire process frustrating and sad. I am a new editor and my article complies with all policies set by Wikipedia; it is perfectly referenced, the notability is documented, with verifiable, excellent sources. It went through the entire process recommended by Wikipedia: heard wikipedia’s backed editors and didn’t move it to mainspace until recommended by one of them. Now, I have to go through this tiring process, in which any editor can say whatever they wish, unveiling, I don't like it issues. while there are articles on mainspace that aren’t even referenced, whatsoever, (with external, third party sources):Habibullah Qaderi, Katze im Sack,Farnham Knights (American football) , Scott Fava, Simon Smith, Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics. FC 19:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi FC. I'm sorry about the frustration and melancholy, but once an article is challenged in Articles for Deletion, the debate needs to take place to an ultimate resolution — sometimes which is an agreement to disagree. I will point out that citing this, that, or the other article that is worse isn't regarded as a valid way to defend this one — see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011

Thanks Carrite! I just wanted to point out that the editor who nominated my article for deletion is the one who wrote the unreferenced articles, so that whoever revises this case, considers it; thanks too to the editors that have suggested constructive changes to my piece FC 12:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  • For the record I did not propose the deletion of this article but I do support it and had I seen the AfD for the book's author I would have supported the outcome of that AfD which was deletion. I do not appreciate having a list of some of the articles I have created brought to this debate just to make a Point and I believe it to be an unjustifiable attack that I do not believe should be condoned by other editors. My deletion point is not that this article is unverifiable but that it is not notable and the sources do not prove otherwise. The articles listed that I have created (with the exception of the incorrectly linked dab page which is nothing to do with my editing) are notable and if they are badly sourced then that can and should be improved. I suspect an AfD on the Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics would be supported by no other editor so to compare it to a fringe theory protest book with no real maintream coverage and where the author of that book was not deemed notable is highly inappropriate. MLA (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:Fabian Colinas is a Wikipedia:NEWCOMER and Carrie has explained his incorrect usage of your articles to make a point, so please WP:AGF and be satisfied with that; your grievance has already been addressed in your favor with the appropriate response level. Diego Moya (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


According to Wikipedia, the only claims to notability are third party reliable sources, not the criteria of the editor himself of what he considers important. MLA: I am sorry that you felt it like a personal attack, it was not my intention, as I didn’t say any personal insult of any sort, just kept it on a professional level (it's just that I think any comment should be backed by personal example and experience); and thanks, Diego Moya. The three core content policies with regards to fringe theories are absolutely observed, in this article: “Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability”. With regards to the title, it was originally in English, I changed it into Spanish, but after reading Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Title_translations, I guess it should be moved back into English, again??? MLA, could you help me insert a content box and solve some editing mistakes; although I am a professional old school editor in three languages, I am new to Wikepedia’s formating. thank you FC 18:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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/Price_Theory:_Economics_is_Mistaken&oldid=1072153301"