Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science driver

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. Wizardman 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science driver[edit]

The article claims this is a term used by economists but there are no sources for that use, and the article has been tagged since June '07. The only sources found in Google refer to a different usage. Even if that other usage is verifiable it would just leave us with a dictionary definition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The article is also an orphan: no other articles link to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article may be on to something, but I've never heard of this term. Some kind of sourcing is needed for verifiability. I've mentioned it at WP:ECON to see if anyone else can lend a hand. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've heard the phrase "science as the driver" in the same context as the article mentions. I think I've even used it before. I did a search but I could not find any sources that describe the term rather then just using it. Too bad, it's a rather well done article. --Patrick (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as an economist, I'd say that it's an actively poor article. —SlamDiego_←T 00:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting concept, but the phrase has no currency and the article is wholly unsourced. Some of its claims, particularly the extremely high ROI claimed (1100%+) and the commonality of the name itself, require citations to even remain in the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've not encountered this term, and no citation has been provided to support the claim that any economists (let alone some significant share of the community of economists) use this term. Frankly, this term seems more the sort of neologism coined by policy entrepreneurs and journalists seeking a new bottle for old wine (or for old vinegar). —SlamDiego_←T 00:49, 13 August 2008 (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.