Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial freedom


 * 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   redirect to wealth. Notability is very ambiguous in cases of this sort, but given the narrowness and simplicity of the topic, as well as the strong topical overlap with wealth, there's little benefit to keeping a separate article. I'll leave the history intact in case someone does decide to merge some of the content. — xDanielx  T/C\R 10:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Financial freedom

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

Contested prod. Dictionary definition with shades of personal essay. No realistic prospect of becoming encyclopedic since the phrase is a massively broad marketing term that can mean all things to all people. Debate  木  10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Having stumbled across this when patrolling new pages, without expressing a view on notability of the term, it does nevertheless appear to be a newly coined neologism and as such generally not notable enough to be included. HOwever without expert knowledge of the field I do not feel I can contribute enough to give a definite opinon. BigHairRef | Talk 10:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above comment posted to wrong article? Since the article was created 22 October 2004... Debate   木  10:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No I use the phrase newly coiined in the sense on WP:NEO, i.e. it mmay be well known in certain communities and well used, perhaps for some time but still a relatively recent neologism which doseen't necessarily enjoy 'universal' usage. As I said I don't necessarily think that the phrase is one (alhtough later scholar searches may seem to indicate it isn't), but that I thought that ip appears to be one under WP:NEO. If it is just a definition of a phrase as having viewed various edits it probably is, rather than deletion I would suggest that it merits Transwiking to Wiktionary (and sorry to keep using it :) ) again as suggested in WP:NEO. Now you all wish I'd stop going on about the policy, I'll shut up. BigHairRef | Talk 06:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. :) I picked up on the "patrolling new pages" part of your comments, but your point regarding WP:NEO is well made. Debate   木  06:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a fair question given the way I'd phrased it, I've made considerably worse ones. BigHairRef | Talk 13:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was bold and redirected it to Wealth. Plrk (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination provides no evidence to support its assertion that the article cannot be improved. A brief search indicates that there are thousands of scholarly sources which is good evidence there is much potential for improvement.  Redirecting to Wealth does not seem appropriate since this does not cover the essential element of financial freedom - that one is free from worry and stress.  This is a matter of psychology as much as economics. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How does financial freedom free you from worry and stress? Financial freedom, per definition, means freedom from financial worries - but not from all worries. Prosperity redirects to Wealth, and Wealth seems to cover everything Financial freedom covers. Your "scholarly" ("The 9 Steps to Financial Freedom" doesn't sound very scholarly to me) sources most probably does not differentiate between wealth and financial freedom, and neither should we. Plrk (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The search link above provides 2630 hits. Some are not useful so we focus upon the ones that are.  For example, from International Journal of Stress Management:  ...and a sense of financial freedom were particularly useful in predicting life satisfaction. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And how does your quote differentiate financial freedom from wealth? Plrk (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The source describes a mental state rather than an amount of money. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: not necessarily with prejudice. The term itself may be worthy of some article, somewhere down the line.  The instant text doesn't seem all that helpful (mostly it boils down to "financial freedom = being rich") and it also seems chock full of original research:  The statement Financial Freedom is used by financial institutions to convince the public to give them their money thinking that these very institutions will achieve financial freedom for the public, when in fact it further creates financial freedom for the institutions and the public gets what's left. Only people can create financial freedom for themselves. Most people lack the needed financial education to create wealth therefore they fall prey to sales promises.  Strip out the tautology and original research, and there isn't anything left. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to wealth No prejudice against breaking the redirect and recreating if and when an editor wants to make an ACTUAL article. Don't bother merging.  There isn't anything in this worth putting into another article (as of this comment).  Matter of fact, I'll just do that right now. Protonk (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Delete it then. Protonk (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wealth Two people have been bold and redirected it, both times we have been undone. Therefore we now await the judgment of an administrator. Plrk (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has been greatly improved through doctoring by Colonel Warden.--Firefly322 (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has certainly been improved, but the main problem with the article remains despite Colonel Warden's admirable efforts to rescue it. The phrase "financial freedom" is a marketing term that is essentially undefinable. Per WP:NEO, it's not our job to define it no matter how widespread it is used, and no matter how many books or references appear to use the phrase in a variety of different ways and contexts. Debate   木  06:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why bother to edit the article then? Why, User:Debate, add a link to the article on wealth at 00:54 this morning  to the see also section? --Firefly322 (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is certainly possible to define financial freedom. I used a form of words in the lede which seems adequate.  If the exact definition is disputed then we may cite sourced definitions such as Financial freedom is the state of being contented with your financial situation. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issue here is whether or not the phrase itself is definable (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) but whether or not it is a notable phrase with significant enough coverage to pass WP:N and WP:V. I may be oversimplifying it but I'd say that if the phrase is a newly coined neologism (assuming we're talking the policy's definition of newly coined, i.e. not in widespread usage), then it dosen't pass WP:N. If it is a phrase in general usage then I think that some sources other than what are essentially primary ones to do with financial reports etc would be needed, i.e. in the outside world. Not being OTT of course passing reference or even close reference would do but all the refernces seem to come from one general area i.e. the specialised financal domain, which would suggest to me it is a neologism. 13:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict with the above by BigHairRef] This is getting silly, but seriously, using the "Money Today" column in the Nigerian Tribune as a principle source for defining anything, let alone a "notable concept" in finance and economics, strikes me as somewhat desperate. Since I appear to have been insufficiently clear in making my main point I'll try to clarify: per WP:NEO, the problem is not a lack of definitions, it's too many ad hoc definitions making the concept far too slippery for an encyclopedic article. This whole discussion is one very good example of the problems associated with relying too heavily on search engine results. Debate   木  13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Nigerian Tribune appears to be a reputable newspaper which has been published for over 50 years and the text that I cited seems quite satisfactory. Please explain why this is not a reliable source. You have produced no sources at all to substantiate your assertions which seem to be just your personal opinion.  You are welcome to your opinion but "because I say so" is not an adequate reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor is "because I say so" an adequate reason to keep. Debate   木  02:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Financial freedom appears in the title of over 500 books. This is a massive level of notability which one rarely sees here.  The common usage of this phrase also disposes of WP:NEO since it demonstrates that the phrase will be readily understood by our readership, which is the point of that guideline.  In any case, WP:NEO is never a reason to delete since one just rewords using more familiar language.  My impression is that the real complaint is here is that this is some sort of WP:SPAM.  I have, I trust, disposed of this by completely rewriting the article in neutral language. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, even with your own search Google Books only returns 119. (Scan forward a few pages and see how many are actually there.) What you appear to be arguing is that frequency of occurrence in search engines is the defining criteria for notability, the fallacy of which can be easily refuted by Googling Financial Slavery, or any other grammatically correct but otherwise largely random collection of words. Per WP:GOOGLE, "Measuring is easy. What's hard is knowing what it is you're measuring and what your measurement shows." Debate   木  14:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a puzzle that Google's hit count misleads in this way but, no matter - whether it is 100 books or 500, we are still hitting the challenge of notability out of the ballpark. It seems apparent that the topic of financial freedom is of great interest to a great many readers and so it is worthy of notice.  Colonel Warden (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not that the term is non-notable or newly coined. It is, like prosperity, simply redundant to wealth. I'd say "prosperity" differs more from "wealth" than "financial freedom" does, and "prosperity" is a redirect to "wealth". "Financial freedom" should be too. There is no need for two article on essentially the same thing. Plrk (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct. In business and finance literature there is NO shortage of new wine in old bottles.  Every year, hundreds of "finance" books are printed and consigned to airport bookstores.  Very few of them present novel concepts.  This isn't necessarily the author's fault.  Publishers often demand that a book make some new claim or present some new phrasing in order to become the next "tipping point" or "random walk" (though those BOTH have strong pedigrees in scientific literature).  We may go back and forth as to what we think "financial freedom" means apart from "wealth", but most of the differences are minor.  Financial freedom is subjective, to be sure, but wealth is subjective, too.  Financial freedom may mean escape living month to month (and this is probably the clearest it may be defined away from wealth), but then how notable is that distinction?  How homogeneous is that distinction?  We have 100 some odd books that use the words "financial freedom" but do they all mean the same thing?  Do most of them mean the same thing? Protonk (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All well made points. As you imply, the problem with definition goes both ways - there are a wide range of related phrases, several of which are used more often than 'financial freedom', such as "financial independence", "financial security", "financial comfort", "economic independence", etc. all of which appear to overlap the broad meaning of the phrase 'financial freedom', at least in some usages. Debate   木  02:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Independent of this AfD, there exists a merger proposal here at Wealth. Interested editors may provide input on the merge (specifically) there.  When the AfD closes, I will probably transclude "merge" related comments from here to there. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Making this proposal in parallel with this AFD discussion seems unnecessarily disruptive. It is better to have all the discussion in one place. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask that you assume good faith. This discussion will conclude in 5 days.  The merger discussion has no time limit.  If the community determines that "financial freedom" is independent from wealth, then the pages will remain separate. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say It's only appropriate, as this is a deletion discussion and not a merging discussion. Plrk (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would broadly support a merger with Wealth, although I'm not convinced that the resulting redirect is particularly helpful. Since AFD is not a vote I'll leave it to the closing admin to wade through the options see which makes more sense, or relist. Debate   木  02:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I remain concerned that this is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF that has no clear potential for expansion, at least, not without a fair amount of original research. Debate   木  02:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep not a neologism. The term was used in Savage Garden's Affirmation which is nearly 10 years old. --Candy-Panda (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might be misunderstanding the term neologism. Although I understand the use of "recent" in the policy's introductory paragraph is unfortunate, in that what is "recent" is at least arguable, the critical definition for our purposes can be found in the main article, "a neologism is a word, term, or phrase that has been recently created (or "coined"), often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary" (my emphasis), which I would suggest is very much what this term is. nb. I'm pretty sure that no one here is arguing that the term was not in use 10 years ago, I certainly am not. Debate   木  13:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The list of sources I cited above includes a book written in 1926. That's over 80 years ago so we don't need to look any further.  It is not a neologism for this and other reasons and, even if it were, this would still be no reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if the term is a neologism, then it is still a notable concept, being in the titles of a number of different books. For example, Suze Orman (The 9 steps to financial freedom), and Van K. Tharp (Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom and Safe Strategies for Financial Freedom). The term means that a person has control over their personal economy, and though it is correlated with wealth, it is not identical. Even a wealthy person with high income can find themselves burdened with excessive debt and expenses. The article as it is now is a stub and should be expanded, but the concept is so well-covered in literature that a stand-alone article seems justified. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Having considered my view after initially coming accross the page by chance, I feel that if the phrase is not a newly coined neologism, then the article is clearly a dictionary definition which is seriously inlikely to ever be expanded beyond that. BigHairRef | Talk 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wealth. This dictionary definition cannot stand on its own, and there doesn't seem much in the article to merge into the target. B.Wind (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DICDEF which carefully explains the difference between a stub and a dictionary definition. This is not a matter of length.  The only reason that this item is short is that care has been taken to cite sources and this is painstaking, laborious work for which no-one is paying me.  If I instead wrote freely then I could soon fill pages as others have shown by writing numerous books on this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The problem with most of the Google-based keep arguments is that none of these sources are actually about "financial freedom". What the sources are about is wealth creation. Following the discussion above and further thought, I've returned to my original conclusion that "financial freedom" is not even a neologism, it's just a couple of words that happen to occasionally occur adjacent to each other when people are discussing wealth. A phrase is not notable simply because it is used frequently (or in this case, infrequently). Debate   木  08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, amassing wealth is just one route to financial freedom. Other routes include reduction of outgoings, cultivation of mental attitudes and clarification of life goals.  The books on the subject usually seem to cover these aspects and presumably that why they use the phrase financial freedom to indicate this wider scope.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the extracts clearly differs dramatically from mine. Without going into detail, the first few hits I get for "financial freedom" on google books are described as (in this exact order) 1) "[title is about] how to obtain control over their money through changing their spending habits; how to understand investments, retirement, insurance, and credit...", 2) "[Title] is filled with the kind of information that will help virtually all traders and investors substantially increase their income", 3) "[title] shows you how to know in 30 seconds whether you should be in or out of the market", 4) "[title is about] Legal and practical strategies for getting out of debt and making a fresh start", etc. etc. None appear to spend much time on "cultivation of mental attitudes and clarification of life goals", which appears to be part of your definition, which may even be a good one except it's OR unless you can find it in reliable sources. Debate   木  09:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also since you wave at Google-based, we must note that this states: Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book Search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * QED what? Debate isn't arguing that the term is not in use.  that isn't the sense of neologism that we are talking about.  He (as well as me) is arguing that it is a term constructed by business guide book writers and financial analysts in order to sell books.  That it isn't fundamentally separate from wealth in terms of the concept.  that the sense that "financial freedom is in the head" and "wealth is not" is neither fully supported by the literature nor sufficient grounds to justify an article separate from wealth. Protonk (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2008 (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.