Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budget advocacy


 * 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Budget advocacy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research on a topic that is not notable

The article 'Budget advocacy' appears to be original research by the author of the page. As far as I am aware there is no need for a Wikipedia article with this name. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sorry as i am new contributor, may not be doing things that i should be, but i feel that there is need of this page/article that can serve as guidance to people working on budget advocacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikhashrestha (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Such objectives are not unappreciated, but you need to imagine what would ensue if Wikipedia allowed “original research”, and especially a competition amongst editors for which “original research” would prevail. The way that Wikipedia resolves the problem is basically to make articles a recapitulation of material from “reliable sources”.  Sometimes the result fills a scholar with woe, but it's the resolution that has achieved general support.  And sometimes the results are actually quite good. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a good faith contribution, but I don't think that it positively contributes to Wikipedia. Unfortunately the page as it stands right now is unverified original research, and I see no easy way to clean it up. The is no verification that the concept itself is notable to wikipedia standards (see Notability). It's not even clear from the page exactly what budget advocacy is. If external sources can be provided that show that this concept is notable, then I suggest removing the original research and creating a stub. LK (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not how to launch an AfD discussion! Please read the instructions on how to nominate an article for deletion. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 15:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC) It appears now to be in good order. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. It seems to me that it is plausible that a suitable article could be assembled, but the present form of the article is too far removed from suitability for it to be allowed to stand.  We would of course need an article that draws its components from “reliable sources”, and that avoids “synthesis”.  I think that the creator of this article should be encouraged to work on the article in userspace, and to bring his or her efforts to the attention of an administrator and that of editors at WikiProject Economics, so that it can be critiqued and he or she can be given some guidance in conforming to established policies. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:20, 26 February 2009 (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.