Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ergosophy


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ergosophy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

nn neologism coined once in 1920s and again recently, no real currency JQ (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand A 90 year old neologism, give me a break. "Ergosophy" certainly won't produce a lot of hits with the Google test, but it's not by any means a neologism.  The article cites two books that define the term.  Soddy defines "ergosophy" as a 'new word' in his 1934 book The Role of Money on page 8.  In the 1994 book, Man in the Biosphere, Stokes refers to the origins of Ergosophy in Soddy's 1921 book Science and Life Wealth, Virtual Wealth, and Debt Money versus Man etc on page 90.  Not brought up in this article is Soddy's 1925 book Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt that also deals with the concept of ergosophy.  All of these books are read today and the books have been published several times since they have been written.  The word ergosophy may not be in common use today, because not a lot of people discuss the philosophy of money.  Additionally, Soddy is seen mostly as an economic heretic and therefore his ideas are not mainstream.  But Wikipedia is not about presenting only the mainstream view, but it is about presenting all opposing views as well if they are well documented.  As such, Soddy's minority view of "Ergosophy" has to be represented.  On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity.  Do not delete this article, but rather expand it.  kgrr  talk 12:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not seeing a problem here.  "Currency" is not required for articles about historical ideas, otherwise we'd have to get rid of phlogiston as well; nobody but me uses the concept anymore.  The article seems to be reasonably focused on its history; a physicist apparently devoted some of his time to expounding a crank economic theory on the social credit model in the 1930s, when many minds were occupied by such things. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Soddy was at the forefront of the beginning of the concept of Ecological economics which uses some of his ideas as its basis, and his ideas of energy and economics are not really so heterdox any more but broadly thought of Soddy in NewYork Times article recently. All of his writing is under a lot of scrutiny currently in regard to his ideas. This very interesting article has been greatly expanded lately and is an excellent addition to the encyclopedia. Noted also, several editors are tagging or removing information from articles for weight that are not connected to that concept via policy or guidelines here also in the main Economics article. Not a good trend currently on Wikipedia as it seems like content control to a pov of mainstream which these days is pretty debatable as to what that even is. As editor kgrr points out also reliable sources and verifiable information is the core of Wikipedia. skip sievert (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 21 October 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.