Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett relation


 * 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. As original research Nosebagbear (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Garrett relation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research, no evidence of research citing the relationship, no scientific credibility.

There is not a single entry for "Garrett relation" in Google Scholar that corresponds to the subject of this article: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22garrett+relation%22&btnG=

Most results on Google are either:


 * This Wikipedia page
 * This PDF, which *specifically claims* to be the author of this article and the person who coined the term "Garrett relation": http://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius/Apowers/A7-K43-Garrett.pdf
 * People reporting this Wikipedia page or the PDF itself.

Page 15: “I’ve written a Wikipedia article introducing the term and the concepts, with some later wording refinements from Tim Garrett.”

All in all it seems that only two persons were involved in the making of this article: Tim Garrett (the person after which the concept is coined) and Richard Nolthenius. They are respectively a researcher in atmospheric clouds, and a researcher in astrophysics. They therefore lack domain-specific scientific credibility to make claims on economics.

We should thus delete this page for the following reasons: WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE.

Seirl (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I did a tally of the references cited in the article:


 * 7 references are from articles from Garrett himself (refs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 16)
 * 2 references are from Nolthenius, the first contributor of this WP page (7, 10)
 * AFAICT, none of the other references talk about the Garrett relationship, they are just used to cite claims made by the article itself

I'd argue that it's clearly self promotion at that point, and should also be removed for WP:PROMOTION.

Seirl (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Balle010 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR, admittedly self-promotional, and not independently verifiable per nominator's good research. We could poke plenty of holes in the validity of the measurements and assertions, starting with correlation does not imply causation, and that might be great fun in a dorm-room-conversation way, but no need to go that far. --Lockley (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's cleary just wacky crankery, as is common for scientists publishing stuff way outside their field. I could have debunked the actual content but as you said, the lack of scientific credibility is manifest here. Seirl (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It looks very interesting, but Wikipedia has never published original research. That's what academic journals and ArXiv are for; we're a tertiary source. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2020 (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.