Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luddite fallacy


 * 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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn).  W odu p  05:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Luddite fallacy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Fails WP:NEO and WP:NPOV. "Luddite fallacy" gets 57 hits on Yahoo and 118 hits on Google, many of which are mirrors of the same article on Jeremy Rifkin. Apparently there is a source for the term but if there is, there is nothing here that isn't already covered better in the critical section of the article on Luddism. Dragomiloff 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn Dragomiloff 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Luddite per nom. --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge . The term "fallacy" is not mentioned even once in the Luddite article and "Luddite fallacy" is a term used in economic circles.  I fully support a merge, but oppose the article's deletion (it's a valid search term).  I will perform a merge of the articles shortly (AFD is unneeded for minor editorial issues).  -- Black Falcon 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am changing my recommendation to keep per the expansion of the article. I no longer think it is appropriate to merge this into Luddite.  -- Black Falcon 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! I have performed a selective merge to the criticism section and also added some more information.  All that's left is to redirect to Luddite and add R from merge. -- Black Falcon 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a couple more things, if this becomes a redirect... Smmurphy(Talk) 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! I have also incorporated some more information from Easterly and will now try to include other available sources.  -- Black Falcon 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks to both of you for working on sourcing and rewriting this. The article now looks a lot more NPOV too.  I'm still concerned that while this term can be sourced it is not widely used, as my web search found, and where it is used it is only by a few economists of a particular political POV (one of them is with the Independent Institute and the other the author of White Man's Burden).  I still lean toward a weak merge with Luddite which would place the concept in broader context.  But could go either way at this point.  The concept appears real enough, just specific to a few economists and not widely used.  Dragomiloff 12:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The concept is indeed used only by economists of a particular point of view (namely neoclassicists), but it has not infrequent use (it is probably mentioned in most economics textbooks and university economics courses). If you'll note, a number of the mentions to the Luddite fallacy are from by university-level economics courses: see UC-Davis, Iowa State University, Citadel Military College, University of Kansas, Harvard University.  -- Black Falcon 18:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm convinced, at least convinced enough that this is a real concept that it's worth keeping a separate article on it. I'm withdrawing my nomination. Dragomiloff 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will keep this page on my watchlist and add additional relevant sources and information as I come across it.  To be fair, I do recognise that the previous versions of the article (this and this) were of substandard quality and did not establish the notability of the subject (or justify why this should be separate from Luddite), so your proposed deletion and AFD nomination were fully valid.  Cheers, Black Falcon 21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now that it is rewritten, it is obviously both notable as a subject and completely different from Luddite the article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of WP:ATT, which shows multiple economists using the term. Article still needs work.  Irene Ringworm 22:36, 12 March 2007 (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.