Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism


 * 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. Weak arguments abound on both sides of the debate, but the "deletes" seem to put forth something of a stronger case. At least two of the votes in favor of keeping cite very broad rationales, almost to the point of being inapplicable. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Book does not come remotely close to meeting any of the five criteria for notable books in WP:BKCRIT. Article currently has exactly 0 citations and book itself has virtually only been reviewed by fringe, ideologically-connected sources (often by publications of the Mises Institute, Hoppe's employer, in articles written by friends and co-workers such as Walter Block and Stephan Kinsella) Steeletrap (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet notability, and there are no sources.  TFD (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 7.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 00:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, no sources, should be deleted. SPECIFICO  talk  00:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – Article has WP:POTENTIAL, and WP:ATD should be followed. (Article improvements have been undertaken.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And what gives you reason to believe that the article has "potential"? Please share. SPECIFICO  talk  01:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Srich32977, "potential" typically means that a wiki entry would meet the criteria for notability if the article were improved/references were added. You can cite that, but you haven't really made an argument for keeping the article until you specify which criterion/criteria the book satisfies. Steeletrap (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you provide and reliable sources that could be used - I have been unable to find any. TFD (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet requirements at all. MilesMoney (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I have located three book reviews from the Freeman, Reason papers and the Mises Institute. The last review is not independent of Hoppe, but the first two reviews seem to be. There is also some criticism/review of the book in this Reason papers article. There is nothing in WP policy regarding notability that bans ideologically similar sources; independent reliable sources are enough. 2 independent book reviews (or 3 if you consider the last criticism/review to be in enough depth) seem to be enough to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:BKCRIT for notability. The article needs better sourcing and I'm not sure that the list of chapters is useful, but these are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE and are not a reason for deletion. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: the FEE review is now posted as a reference, but not incorporated into the prose. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark V. I'm curious. As an uninvolved editor, perhaps you can tell me is there a WP:RS policy that professors or other experts who happen to be loose associates of subjects (same institutes, fraternities, academic associations, etc.) cannot be used to ref their material? (Or at least nothing positive about them.) I keep hearing this claim from a few newer editors, but in 7 years haven't seen the policy. Mention their name and affiliation, sure, in a neutral, non-damning fashion, but not use at all? User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  15:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a specific policy regarding colleagues in the same department or institution. With regard to notability, the requirement is for multiple independent sources. The essay Independent sources, referred to by WP:RS, indicates that independence means that there should be no financial or legal relationship with the subject; there should also be no COI with respect to the WP article. The essay also says that independence doesn't imply the source must be neutral. So above, one could argue that that someone from the Mises institute is not independent, nor someone like Kinsella who may make money promoting Hoppe's work. At the other end of the spectrum, a search for "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism" -Springer garners 229 hits in GScholar with plenty of refs not Block, Kinsella or Hoppe. Some of these are independent refs that could also be used to help discuss the book's reception, impact, etc. --Mark viking (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comment. I just think there's a difference between a loose affiliation, which most of these academics and scholars have, and actual employment by an Institute. And even then just mentioning affiliation is enough. Going through those 299 hits to find which ones not just a footnote is a lot of work, of course; but evidence many WP:RS take the book/author seriously. :-) CM-DC Face-surprise.svg  05:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:FRINGE rather plainly. No sources that aren't anarcho-capitalist fringe theorists have discussed this topic. jps (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * jps, the link re sources certainly applies to scientific subjects, such as astronomy, but Hoppe's book is simply political and economic theory/opinion/ideas. As heterodox, the ideas get a balanced presentation in WP. Even WP:FRINGE subjects get a balanced coverage: we use WP:ITA and follow WP:PARITY to do so. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE applies to more than scientific subjects. jps (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich, the cited links do not apply to the AfD decision. Please read the notability requirements for books and state your view in terms of applicable WP policy.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (OP) The bar for notability with respect to books is quite high, per WP:BKCRIT. Opponents of deletion have only cited fringe ideological sources, which is nowhere near sufficient to justify the article's existence. Steeletrap (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that the Originator and at least two of the "Deletes" are battle ground editors in Austrian economics general sanctions articles, Hoppe being a battleground article, really taints the process. With three minutes of searching I found one good and 3 potential WP:RS on Questia; and 60 mentions and counting on google.scholar. I can't have my wiki editing dictated by others' AfDs, but if they want to improve the encyclopedia they'll take a few minutes to ref things. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  07:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Carol, please focus on content, not contributors. Strong arguments for deletion have been presented above that 2 of the three editors who are not involved in the "battleground" you speak of endorsed. Steeletrap (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Pointing out bias, especially on administrative type lists, is appropriate per Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  15:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mark viking. Creating articles about serious works of non-fiction should be encouraged. I am sorry we are even having this debate. (NB, I agree the list of chapters is not useful, and have removed it - but this is not relevant to whether the article should be deleted or not). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * keep the 9 year old article. not enough support here to delete, move to close. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2013 (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.