Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic Economics

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. Withdrawn Eddie891 Talk Work 13:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Economics

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not specifically notable , and I think not NPOV, considering the references and the content of the reviews DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think every book gets a Wall Street Journal video[1]. NPOV requires cleanup, not deletion. Other sources are less extremely obvious, but being included in lists like this one from Traders Magazine is a clear indication of notability (assuming this isn't some paid advert thing, but it doesn't look like it). A column in Forbes may not be a RS, but still, most people and books don't get this kind of recognition[2]. And then there are the regular sources, like this review in the Jackson Sun. It is called a "classic book" by the UK Spectator, which publishes an excerpt[3]. It is called a "much-lauded" book by Reason. Review in FEE and in Kirkus. Other reviews by RRPA and a very lengthy one in Cato. Interview about the book with the Hoover Institution. Fram (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's his most notable, most famous book! It's had 5 editions! just because the article had only just been created doesn't call for it's deletion. the article specifically includes a criticism section too so I don't think it can be called a violation of NPOV. If and article was going to be written on a book by thomas sowell, this one should be. As can be seen in an archived talk page discussion, people have questioned why this wasn't done sooner. This article is just a beginning, I created it only a few days ago. It really should stay. Both claims: violation of NPOV and not notable are asserted without justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd123lbp (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep as met WP:NBOOK at the time of nomination with multiple reviews; I added another. The criteria: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." I made a few edits to the article; it needed a more encyclopedic tone but didn't suffer from NPOV issues and it wasn't in bad shape. One of the weirder nominations I've seen in some time. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep proves it is notable. Heart (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support everyone! Please help me improve the page wjth some of those great references! Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd123lbp (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - in having multiple reviews, passes WP:NBOOK.Onel5969 TT me 21:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I know it technically passes NBOOK as written--so does every published textbook, for they all get reviewed--and Kirkus will review essentially anything. The question is the total failure of NPOV, which is a much more basic principle that the guideline on notability. --is this a textbook on economics, or a textbook on free market economics? What do the reviews actually say in that respect? Is there any actual information here that can't be justified by a line in his article? And if it's his most famous book, what justifies the articles on his other books.? (but at least those articles at least give a hint in describing the contents that the book is from a particular perspective. I think the term for this entire group of article is WP:Walled garden. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say half of the nomination statement does not apply here. O... Kay then... Well, you are welcome to contribute additional direct quotes by clicking the links to the reviews and adding. You are also welcome to rewrite the parts you don't believe are neutral or explain what kind of lens the author has regarding these issues... clean it up if you believe it needs cleaning up; nominate the other articles if you like. All of that is neither here nor there in a deletion discussion. Nominating a book that for notability when you know it "technically passes NBOOK" (and no, most textbooks do not, and Kirkus's paid reviewers cannot review "essentially anything"--far from it and they aren't Amazon)-- What on earth is going on?? Just... I don't know... maybe do the work? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 99% of the textbooks don't get the reviews this one gets. Yes, they may get a Kirkus review, perhaps, but not the other ones. As for NPOV, that's not a reason to delete this, that's a reason for cleanup. Remove all offending material, keep the neutral stuff. But perhaps first explain, with some examples, what makes this such a terrible NPOV violation that it warrants not pruning, not rewriting, but annihilation? Because I don't see it, and no one else seems too bothered by it either.
    • "All textbooks get reviewed", but most don't get a 7-page long review in Cato Journal, do they? Foundation for Economic Education or Reason (magazine) are reliable sources (yes, they have a certain slant, but a book that only gets reviewed in e.g. left-wing or right-wing sources is still a notable book, and the POV of the book or the sources wouldn't be a reason to delete the article). The Spectator doesn't publish excerpts of just any textbook either. I don't get your insistence that this article should be deleted or only technically passes NBOOK: what more would you expect? Fram (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Somehow I thought you are a librarian, User:DGG, how could you propose this for deletion? It clearly passes WP:NBOOK, neutrality problems are no reason for deleting stuff, I don't see issues warranting a WP:TNT approach here. Anyway, I have added more academic reviews.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm withdrawing this as hopeless. Back to 2006 I guess ,when WP was a playground for this sort of advocacy. Or if it's gotten better, I hope someone will fix the NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

` DGG I don't really understand your claim that this is advocacy? what cause is it advocating? Could you be more specific in the claim that there is a breach of NPOV? Which parts are not neutral? The article follows sources and is written in a factual manner. There is also criticism included on it.

It ignores the fact the author is devoted to advocacy of a particular economic position. This would be critical to the judgement of the book, and confirmed by the Cato review. One of the aspects of promotionalism is hiding what some people might consider evidence of a very specific politico-economic orientation, DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, your view is that this article "ignores" a subject that should be in it (namely, Sowells politico-economic orientation) and thus that is evidence of breaching of WP:NPOV. The absence of something is not evidence for something, it is simply an absence. It is written at the top of Sowell's biography page that "he writes from a conservative-libertarian perspective" - how hard would it be to add that in, if you insist on that - I personally think it would be rather repetitive to have it written here as well. Also, this wikipedia article doesnt advocate this point of view either, it simply states the facts about what subjects the book deals with. I would much prefer a simple stating of the facts about the book, rather than turn this into a debate page over whether people agree or disagree with his political orientation. If you think this article is advocating his political-economic persuasion, be specific - tell us which sentences you think do this and we can correct them together. (an argument for editing rather than deletion)

At this point we've had two claims that are pushing the case for deletion 1: "not notable" - that has been thoroughly disproved, and 2: "violates NPOV" - that can be remedied very easily with minor edits (assuming its a problem at all, which I dont think it is). DGG please join in the talk page discussion, I am keen to improve this article with you, rather than cast it into oblivion due to the rather vague accusation of NPOV. Gd123lbp (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case DGG you shouldnt have posted your last comment which seemed aimed at continuing this debate, also, the notice appears to still be on the article page. I am waiting to see that withdrawn. Gd123lbp (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I leave that to the person who makes the formal close. It's always good to let an uninvolved person do that. (Especially when I make clear in my statement I'm withdrawing it because it won't succeed, not that I've changed my own opinion of this and related articles) DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 1 December 2020 (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/Basic_Economics&oldid=992091471"