Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy of the commons (2nd nomination)


 * 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 merge to Tragedy of the anticommons or Tragedy of the commons, whichever is more appropriate. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Comedy of the commons
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's only one source in the article which actually uses the phrase "comedy of the commons" and even that does it in a way that just plays off the much more famous Tragedy of the commons. Looking around there's some other sources which use the term but they do so inconsistently with no set meaning. This isn't surprising given that the concept "tragedy of the commons" exists - sooner or later someone will think themselves clever and use "comedy" to title something or other. This does not make this a well defined or notable encyclopedia article subject. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 2.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * delete; nonnotabe term and incomprehensible article. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge - covers similar ideas to tragedy of the anticommons. The articles should be merged into one article called 'Criticism of tragedy of the commons'.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed my 'vote' from 'merge' to 'Keep/merge', the term seems notable - but I'm neutral on whether it needs its own article. It certainly should have a mention on the Tragedy of the commons page. As for the general concept it is better as part of Common good or Common good (economics), although, neither of those articles are great at the moment.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the Rose article and use of the concept in either of these articles is fine - but it's really just a minor part of the bigger topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge. Not enough to stand alone, but a useful complement to Tragedy of the commons. Merge into the latter article. (Carol M. Rose is a leading property theorist...) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep this seems to be a bad faith attempt by the Volunteer Marek to delete the article, and all material about it, as well as all similar articles that don't agree with his only favourite outcome 'tragedy of the commons'. In broad terms there's four possible outcomes: in any particular market place, it can be a commons (commonly held with no effective ownership), anticommons (private only, monopolistic ownership), and it can be reaching its potential or not reaching its full potential. The tragedy of the commons is only one possible outcome, there's three others, and the research shows that they all happen in the real world.GliderMaven (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The four outcomes you outline are not mutually exclusive, many countries have laws for private and common/public ownership with positive and negative outcomes resulting simultaneously. An article (or sections on Tragedy of the commons) about the positive aspects of commons and negative aspects of anticommons would be useful. However, the phrase 'tragedy of the commons' has a long history, and therefore many sources. The phrase 'comedy of the commons' is less well known and used. It would be useful if you could provide references for the research you mentioned.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whole thing is his own personal original research and he has refused to provide any sources to back any of it up, saying that it's just "summarizing" or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And GliderMaven, I would really appreciate it if you refrained from now on from telling me what my "only favorite outcome" is as you have no way of knowing that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's actually quite a lot of good quality sources I've found on this topic, I've added a few already, and somebody even won a Nobel prize by essentially finding Comedies and analysing what made them work. Villages in the Swiss alps have had literal grazing commons working extremely well for them for about 500 years; and Wikipedia itself can be considered a comedy also; I noticed that Wikipedia itself had been specifically and systematically removed by the nominator while removing material.GliderMaven (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're talking about Elinor Ostrom. She did not use the term "comedy of the commons" except perhaps when she cited Rose's article, which is still the only source for the term.
 * Please keep in mind that the article on Comedy of the commons is NOT suppose to be a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK for "tragedy of the commons". Both Rose and Ostrom can be used in other articles. This article is just original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And the reason I'm removing your "examples" is because they're your own original research. Look, this isn't about whether one believes in the tragedy of the commons or not, as you seem to think it is. It's simply about whether this article and this term are notable. And the answer to that is no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - this is the only reasonable thing to do with material which passes NNC but fails SIGCOV, especially if there's an obvious article to merge it into. De Guerre (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect you say that it fails SIGCOV, but Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel prize on this exact topic, so I don't understand how it can fail it. There's also wrote a book on it, and other people have chapters in books, and there's over a thousand RS papers on it, and plenty of online commentators have written extensively about various online commons. I mean don't forget, this is only stub quality right now.GliderMaven (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, as much as you try to repeatedly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, Elinor Ostrom did NOT... NOT NOT NOT NOT ... win a Noble prize "on this exact topic". That is total nonsense. The supposed topic of this article is not notable enough for anyone to have won a Noble prize "on it". She won the Noble prize "for her analysis of economic governance". Here is the Noble prize page for her: . Please show me where it says anything about some "comedy of the commons". Please stop misrepresenting this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom (I think I'm suppose to !vote too). Merging some of the material to tragedy of the anticommons makes sense as well, in particular the Rose article (which is the only reliable relevant source in this article).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (note that GliderMaven has tried to strike out or remove my !vote from this discussion)Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The topic has notability as Rose's paper is extensively cited. The fundamental topics here are on pages like common good (economics) or commons.  Highlighting the positive or negative aspects of these is not neutral and so the tragedy/comedy should be brought together to provide balance. Andrew D. (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's the first sensible comment I've read in this car-crash discussion. Clearly someone coined the phrase "Comedy of the Commons", which is referred to by many and is therefore notable, and clearly this is part of a bigger discussion about the common good. JMWt (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the disagreement seems to arise from whether the article should be about a specific academic term 'Comedy of the commons', or whether it should be about the wider general concept that 'comedy of the commons' refers too - as discussion on the 'Rename' section on the talk page.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an essay, almost entirely OR that refers to various authors and articles, but the article text is not verified by the references. Any well-cited and noteworthy criticism of the Tragedy of the Commons can be used in that article.   SPECIFICO  talk  13:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment I encourage !voters to check any and all the edits in the article made by Volunteer Marek; he is removing material that even has whole chapters on the comedy of the commons and claiming that it never mentions it and is off topic. This is terribly bad form in my opinion; he's also removing material on 'triumph of the commons' on the grounds that it isnt' the same term; but the principle is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and articles are not on terms, they are on topics, in this case, successful commons.GliderMaven (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You failed to provide a link to the Rifkin book. Now that I went and searched it out myself it does appear that he uses the term, again, when quoting Rose. So what you have ONE source where the term first appeared and then another source which mentions the original source. There is still no indication for a widespread use of the term.
 * And I have no idea why you think that WP:NAD gives you a free pass to conduct your own original research and equivocate between different terms when you have trouble finding sources. "Triumph of the commons" is not "comedy of the commons", not without a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment2 there was a previous AFD in 2006 on this topic; but a Nobel prize was awarded in 2009 on it.GliderMaven (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment3 the nom is admitting above to deleting references and material without checking them, he has been doing this systematically.GliderMaven (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a discussion regarding the name of the article here Talk:Comedy_of_the_commons Jonpatterns (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Response to GliderMaven There was no "Nobel prize" awarded for work on "Comedy of the Commons". That's just ridiculous. There was a prize awarded for work on the freakin' Tragedy of the commons.
 * And GliderMaven, seriously, stop it with the personal attacks. You failed to provide a link to a source making it unverifiable. And even when I found the source myself all it did was just quote the previous source. Please stop misrepresenting things. I'm starting to loose my patience with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment4: Scholar alone has 1120 hits on 'comedy of the commons' and they seem to be broadly on-topic. I've found quite a few books on this as well in google and elsewhere, and I've only put a very few into the article so far. The nom has repeatedly claiming that it's all 'OR'; but absolutely there's no evidence of that I can find anywhere, that claim, along with deleting references and material out of hand.GliderMaven (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of them are either instances where Rose's paper was cited, or they are unrelated usages of the term.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The OR was your little table which was unsourced (which is no longer, correctly, in the article) and your made up "examples" of "comedy of the commons" which were unsourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have to admit to being a bit confused about the above. Surely academic sources always reference previous uses of a term, so there are no "unrelated" uses. That's the nature of academic work. Many of the papers actually appear to be attempting to highlight and distinguish the term from the "tragedy of the commons" - which appears to me to be evidence that the term is legitimate.  These are not just repeating the title of the Rose paper, they're actually referring to the idea. JMWt (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, what it means is that more than one person has had the idea to riff off "tragedy of the commons" by being clever and talking about a "comedy of the commons", because, you know, that's like ironic since comedy and tragedy are opposites. But not all of these persons are talking about the same thing. That's some of the sources, the rest are about or cite Rose. What this really does show is that the "comedy of the commons" idea, to the extent there is some substance to it, is just an elaboration on the general idea of the tragedy of the commons or a criticism of it, which is where any of useful info here belongs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that's not at all what it's about. It's about the branch of economics that Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel prize investigating.GliderMaven (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. You really have no idea of what you're talking about. Elinor Ostrom won the Noble prize "for her analysis of economic governance". Not some "comedy of the commons". More specifically she won (in part, she's had a lot of contributions) for studying how societies solve the problem of managing common resources without central government intervention. If someone can't tell the difference between what Ostrom actually did and what this "comedy of the commons" is (or you think it is) then their !vote here should probably be discounted. Heavily.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I can state that you are incorrect, that's what her research was about, and I am incredibly unimpressed that you deleted this from the article lead, in the middle of an AFD like that, and reading the references, and really even reading her bio will show that.GliderMaven (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Show me a source that says that Elinor won the Noble prize for "comedy of the commons". You basically can't because such a source doesn't exist because you just made that shit up. Here is her bio . Where? Where is this "comedy of the commons" in this bio? Not in there. You made that up too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Her bio says she: 'After fifteen years of extensive research on police industry structure and performance, I returned to studying the commons, but this time with the recognition of what I was studying. The National Research Council created a special committee in the mid-1980s to review the empirical research written about common-pool resources.' It doesn't say anywhere she ever worked on tragedy of the commons; but other references do say she worked mainly on the comedy/commons in general. According to you, she only worked on tragedy of the commons. Sorry, no. I specifically gave you a reference saying she worked on the comedies; I have never seen a single reference saying she only worked on the tragedy, which is what you are claiming. Put up or shut up.GliderMaven (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You have yet to provide a single reference which says she worked on the "comedy of the commons". You just keep asserting that without any backing.
 * As to her working on "Tragedy" of the commons she references it here, here is a secondary source, here is another, here is she herself talking about it, here is another secondary source, here she is talking about Tragedy again, here is another secondary source about Ostrom's work on the tragedy of the commons and here... well, I'm bored now. If you think that "there's no sources" that she worked on the tragedy of the commons then that simply means you're not familiar with the topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You both need to step away from this kind of behaviour, it isn't helping. Clearly Ostrom didn't work on the "Comedy of the Commons" because the term was only coined later. But clearly the term reflected some of the ideas Ostrom had developed in her Nobel Prize winning work around the commons (her work was clearly much wider than just about the Tragedy). Now instead of fighting over edits and reverting, how about being constructive? JMWt (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The term was actually coined in 1986, and she wrote her book in 1990, but otherwise that's correct; and Volunteer Marek is trying to merge everything into Tragedy of the Commons. I can only presume Marek's an extreme libertarian or something and doesn't believe in the idea of stable commons and is trying to get the article deleted. GliderMaven (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think part of the misunderstanding is to do with whether the article is (or should be) about the concept 'comedy of the commons' AKA positive results from common ownership, or just about the specific phrase phrase Comedy of the Commons and nothing more. Also see, Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia - some editors are prefer 'selective coverage', while other are happy for 'broad retention'. Also see Notability, which may help in deciding whether or not a topic should or should not have an article.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * GliderMaven, you know what they say about making assumptions. You have no idea of what my beliefs are so I'd appreciate it - and I believe I've already asked you once - if you kept your sophomoric opinions about what I supposedly believe to yourself.
 * Jonpatterns - the WP:Notability guideline is the crux of the issue here. By itself, the phrase or the concept "Comedy of the commons" is not notable. There's nothing in this article that couldn't be accommodated with a couple sentences in the article on the Tragedy of the Commons or the Criticisms of article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Really, so why did somebody get a Nobel prize on this if it's not notable???? She didn't get it for Tragedy of the Commons, and the Rifkin source specifically links her and the Comedy of the Commons.


 * The article is NOT simply about any phrase at all, it's a general article about stable commons. Just because you keep saying that is about that phrase, doesn't make it any way true. Please stop misrepresenting the sources, the facts, the article, and please stop pushing your political views on Wikipedia.GliderMaven (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Freakin' a. How many times does this have to be repeated and explained? She didn't get the Nobel prize for "comedy of the commons". That's stupid because it's not a widely used concept. She got the Nobel prize, as I've mentioned and backed up with sources half a dozen times by now, for studying how societies successfully manage the commons - i.e. how they *resolve* the tragedy of the commons. I gave you half a dozen sources which say exactly that and further sources are trivial to find. There is no further point in this discussion because you're hell bent on being obstinate and NOTLISTENING.
 * And also one more time. You don't know what my "political views" are, so please kindly screw off.
 * (and here's a piece of life advice - don't make ad hoc assumptions about other people's beliefs either in real life or online because you end up looking like an ass yourself. This is in response to you restoring your obnoxious personal attack after it's been removed ).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It has not been decided that the entry should be ... a general article about stable commons. '. Also, it is best to Assume good faith rather than suggest other editors have political motivations.
 * I've started a WP:RfC (on article's talk page) to decide exactly what the article should be about, a phrase or a concept.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that discussion will take a while to run, but for the purposes of this discussion the relevant policy is that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide", so I'm stating that it is and should be on the topic of stable commons, and not on a phrase.GliderMaven (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You completely misunderstand what "not a dictionary" means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2016 (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.