Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genuine Progress Indicator

Genuine Progress Indicator was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep rewritten version.

This page was created by an IP address identified with the banned User:EntmootsOfTrolls (the IP was subsequently blocked by Raul654). Other than a non-substantive formatting edit by Diberri, the article has only been edited by User:LlortTheehtTroll, first to tag it as a speedy deletion and then to remove the tag. I believe LlortTheehtTroll to be a reincarnation of EntmootsOfTrolls, using this identity to take advantage of our policy that allows other users to "adopt" the edits of banned users and prevent their removal. Accordingly, I speedily deleted the article under case #6 (articles) of Candidates for speedy deletion. The article was subsequently restored without going through Votes for undeletion. When an article is undeleted without following the normal process, Undeletion policy calls for the article to be put directly on VfD. So here it is. --Michael Snow 22:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, contrary to the statements in the article, this is not a concept related to anything that was ever passed into law. Genuine progress indicator is a phrase used by one of the MPs in the Canadian House of Commons with respect to a motion "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should develop and report annually on a set of social, environmental and economic indicators of the health and well-being of people, communities and ecosystems in Canada." The motion passed but has no legislative force, and the government did not actually enact such a law (see Canada Well-Being Measurement Act). --Michael Snow 23:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There has been general discontent within the left-wing that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not a responsible measure of healthy activity.  For example, the Exxon Valdez spill should register in a "rational measure of healthy activity" as a negative event rather than a positive event--as in GDP.    In my opinion, the Genuine Progress Indicator page inaccurately represents Canadian involvement, but I have heard that the Green Party in Canada has lobbied for Canada's adoption of a "Genuine Progress Indicator" (GPI) that--unlike GDP--would take into account the damage to society done by crime and pollution.   I am intrigued by your sleuth work on the various forms that the changeling EoT takes.  Nevertheless, I suggest that someone could make a good Wikipedia page out of the Genuine Progress Indicator page by collecting the various strands of left-wing thought that have intersected in the last year over the controversial replacement of GDP with GPI.  ---Rednblu 00:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Created by banned user who essentially admitted (in his edits to Candidates for Speedy Deletion) that his goal was to get his POV distributed to mirrors before it gets deleted from Wikipedia. Also, from my experience, cleaning up his articles is a mess, since they tend to include his original research/original opinions, described as if they were commonly accepted.  If anyone wants to write a new article from a scratch, I would not mind. Andris 01:18, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Since my wish in the last sentence has come true, I change my vote to keep.
 * Delete: creation of a banned user. Attempting to determine whether it has useful content is a waste of time. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Creation of a banned user.  SWAdair | Talk  04:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten version. And Rednblu calls that a stub.  I wish more stubs looked like that.  SWAdair | Talk  09:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Creation of a banned user. That said, it's not horribly written or anything. But there's nothing here anyone interested couldn't put together very quickly. So no real loss of information here. Perhaps those who want to keep this could instead write us better article in its place once this is gone. It would be appreciated as there should be an article on this topic. Jallan 20:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two arguments. The first one, which I grant you is controversial (but still is the opinion of a decent minority of contributors), I support keeping good edits made by a banned user, especially when these users were banned for behavioral failure, not content issues. I have three main arguments to support my wish : 1) removing good edits results in loss of quality 2) 142 has been editing before I joined...so, at least since january 2002. Obviously, deleting his articles (many many many were deleted) is not succeeding in preventing him from participating, 3) I believe in transformative justice. I think that when bad edits are removed and good edits kept, then it is a teaching experience and the one who wants to participate will go toward good edits more naturally.
 * My second argument is probably... quite weird for most of you. Forgive me if I try to think global rather than local. Look, the deletion of this article will achieve "supposed protection of our encyclopedia, by removal of acceptable content". The benefit is quite light. Now, we have currently a problem with 142, as he is trying to spread bad and false information about Wikimedia Board. Each time an article (decent) is written here, and consequently removed, the frenzy of attack is higher. Yesterday, after the article was deleted, 142 added some more paragraphs, which (if I dare) immensely more dangerous to our encyclopedia than any (decent) article he could ever write here. Some of his articles are decent. All deletions of them results in more harm for our project. I am not sure that removing an article is worth the global damage.
 * My appreciation for you anyway Michael, for your work. I may have my own opinion on the matter, and wish to voice it, I respect your choice to follow the rules anyway :-)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Request. Please consider delisting Genuine Progress Indicator from VfD since I rewrote this page as a new stub. Thank you. :) ---Rednblu 23:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay. I would have preferred to delete first, then rewrite, but I'm not going to reverse this. By the way, that's not a stub by any stretch of the imagination. --Michael Snow 19:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)