Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fair Market

Original research. Not published anywhere. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research. --Hemanshu 19:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Subject is a variation of two established Wikipedia entries: market socialism and georgism. Could possibly be a subtopic of one of those, but it is different enough that it would need excessive space to explain.  Better to keep it as an independent article with links to and from the other terms.  In addition, obviously there is some material dealing with the subject, though unpublished.  Term is known to a few thousand people, with a few dozen self-ascribed proponents.  Agreed, not as important an article as say, market socialism, but nonetheless worth a mention.  Request specific clarification on standards that define "original research" vs "established work", exact numbers and circumstances.  Not merely adjectives like "notable", "lots", "many", "quite a few".  If there is a standard, lets define it and apply it to everything.  Anyone want to start a "Wikipedia original research threshhold" article or something like that? --Exitil 19:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't expect more response than this to your request for legalistic justification for our subjective decisions. I'm not sure there's a specific policy against it, but it's not how we do things.  And there's no dividend, at least IMO, to interrupting work to explain why; if you're interested enough to care why, the best way to find out is to read VfD diligently, or better yet, do some work here that does fit in with what we do here. --Jerzy(t) 00:59, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. -- orthogonal 20:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Also I think it should be noted that there is really no need to physically publish something to distribute it. Though I've done so on a limited scale to introduce people to it who wouldnt go online looking for it, theres not really a market for alternative economic theories anywhere except dozen-member communist groups with biweekly "zines".  If that counts, then hey, the article should stay because it's been in one.  But seriously, who is going to put an anti-capitalist, yet not mainstream-socialist idea in any sort of major economic journal?  And who is going to buy hundreds of pages of these ideas when they can just click a link?  If the standard for economics is wide publication, then you'll never have any entries except capitalism and socialism, while there are many important and very different variations of them.  Again, requesting clarification on standards. Exitil 20:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. [rlundy82] Genius research, make your own wiki or something. This is too valuable to be published under the GNU FDL for the sake of the author's name. Alex, rethink your position on your own property and the FDL.
 * Delete, Someone should also tell Wikisource to delete the entire tree by "Author: Alexander Temal", unless, of course, they accept original research. -Vina 20:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this and his other work be suitable for WikiBooks, even if not for WikiSource? Transwiki to WB? --Jerzy(t) 00:59, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, but I must say that it's not offensively written. Nevertheless, it is unestablished in economics and therefore not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Geogre 21:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Actually kind oif interesting, but still original research and therefore against policy.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Del. Orig res. --Jerzy(t) 00:59, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
 * Delete original research unless evidence is presented that this is much more widely discussed. Exitil is correct that this can be considered a logical extension of existing thought and theory.  This specific theory, however, is discussed only by one author that I can find.  Rossami 02:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Speed delete: repost of previously deleted article. The article (under the title Fair market) passed through vfd in January 2004 and was duly deleted. Talk:Fair market has the vfd discussion log. Fair market page history doesn't show the previous incarnation of the page due to the database crash in June (?) 2004. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Excerpt from http://www.enigmous.com/index.php?viewid=178. "Child labor, terrible health, and a dirty and polluted environment ... occur when capitalism is left unregulated. Yet, many conservatives feel the market will solve everything, and that capitalism should be left alone. ... Free market capitalism is no better than closed market communism. The answer is fair market capitalism....where the markets are closely watched and pushed and prodded in order to provide benefits for the majority and prevent the exploitation of the working class. Exitil 14:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Excerpt from http://www.fpoe.at/fpoe/bundesgst/programm/chapter10.htm. "(1) The model of a fair market economy requires equality of the productive factors - labor and capital. In accordance with the principle of fairness allowing for appropriate remuneration for labor, men and women should receive the same pay for the same work. (2) A fair market economy is the response to unbridled capitalism which exploits man and nature and to failed socialism which degrades its "workers" to administrative objects." Exitil 14:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Second link likely does not refer to article's system, though the first one may. However, both show the term is at least being used and is used in an anti-capitalistic context referring to systems that serve functions similar to the current fair market article.
 * After-the-fact vote: speedy delete, of course. Stomp out those recreations. &bull; Benc &bull; 18:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)