Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Capitalism


 * 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   no consensus.  Black Kite  08:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Capitalism

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

A non-notable neologism with only one 3rd party source, largely reliant on author's self-published writing; see discussion at Talk:Neo-Capitalism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete  No citation of notability and high-probable conflict of interest. The footnotes at the bottom point to the author's own website, or to sites unrelated to the subject of this article.  This appears to be propaganda, not a reflection of an existing theory or movement. -Markeer 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep/Improve The underlying OR has been removed and pared down to cited information. Always nice to see an AfD spark improvement to an article. -Markeer 12:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As I note on the talk page, the term has been used at various times by various people to mean various different things. The meanings don't agree with each other, and none of the uses were notable. In other words, its a non-notable neologism until one of the uses becomes firmly established. --LK (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, I just poked around Google Scholar for a bit, and it seems to be a word used widely in academic literature. More importantly, books have been written on the concept. Whether or not the current content of the article reflects its usage and theoretical base within scholarship is irrelevant. Articles that are about notable topics and can be improved should be kept, per WP:Deletion. SMSpivey (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've thrown a rescue tag on the article to see if someone at the Article Rescue Squadron can change this into a workable stub. I am woefully lacking in understanding of economics, so I wouldn't trust myself to fix this article. SMSpivey (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It was put up by some person that wrote a manifesto and the content is based on that, and the kitchen sink... it connects with a couple of blogs for sources. While the name may sound familiar.. to other material... that material is not connected to this article... Vanispamcruftisement or so it seems. It seems like the author of this may have put this all up in good faith, maybe without understanding guidelines or criteria, but there is nothing to salvage for another article here, except maybe the title... and that can be recreated. skip sievert (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Tag for sources and send to WP:Cleanup. If google books and google scholar are any indication, this could become a terrific addition that improves wiki. Definitely needs attention from experts in the field.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep [Disclaimer: I'm the guy who wrote the page] There are two separate issues going on here because the page consists of two quite separate parts: (i) the definition of the term 'Neo-Capitalism' as historically used by Giddens among many others in the post-WW2 academic economic discourse up until the 1990s and (ii) usage in the 2009 The Neo-Capitalist Manifesto. Now I'm getting the very strong impression that the latter is out until at least the first of my books gets published and my peer reviewed academic articles finally appear, in which case fine, I'll resubmit the material then. So therefore how about I kill off the 2009 stuff and just make it a historical article? As I offered on the talk page, I can have a go at this this weekend. BTW, the article was written in good faith and attempted to objectively overview my own work in a detached fashion as anyone should be able to tell from reading it. I object most strenuously to the constant implications that I am some sort of glory seeking propagandist. Feel free to embark on five years of your own research first, THEN throw your implications freely. In the meantime, have some respect for a content contributor. I have plenty to be doing other than writing Wikipedia pages. (Niall Douglas (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment I suggest you refactor the above comment. You can remove this suggestion/comment at the same time... in the process of doing that. Swearing at people on Wikipedia is not a good idea, and could get you blocked. You need to read up on Wikipedia guidelines. If your work as a writer is sufficiently notable, someone may start an article about it. You can not. It is not appropriate for you to do it, because of the conflict of interest. skip sievert (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Response No where in my comment did I swear, but I removed the reference to God anyway. I am keeping the rest of it because to be quite frank, judging by the comments based on this page so far and the implied assumptions being freely bandied around, half of you guys need a serious attitude readjustment. There is no need to be so cynical and to assume that most contributors to Wikipedia are by default crackpots and losers, and the rest incapable of contributing objectively - some HELPFUL COMMENTS on where there are clear signs of conflict of interest in my article would be constructive rather than just bitching. Right now my current mindset is that the lot of you can go take a running jump - contributing to Wikipedia is more effort than it's worth when people prefer to moan and criticise than contribute constructively. (Niall Douglas (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment You are quite correct that it is appropriate for Wikipedia editors to assume good faith, in fact it's one of Wikipedia's core values. However, I will ask that you not take criticisms personally, since assuming good faith goes both ways.  Those editors above (including myself) may well have been inappropriate in calling the post-2008 section of the article "propaganda" or the like, but we were not incorrect that there was an underlying conflict of interest that expressed itself in those sections.  Of course many people are capable of being objective in writing about their own work.  However, from wikipedia's point of view, writing about one's own work in the complete absence of verifiable secondary sources is a serious concern.  I see that you have already removed those sections, thank you, and doubly thank you for offering to work on the historical uses of this term to make a much stronger Wikipedia article.  But there's no reason to become upset when editors expect the guidelines for inclusion (verifiability and notability) to be upheld in an objective manner. -Markeer 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy appears to be self-promotional more than RS informational at this point. Indeed, it appears to be a personal essay more than a general article. Give the author time to work on it and remedy the cavils made. Collect (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Markeer and LK. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep...This editor may have written a book on Neo-Capitalism but he did not invent the word...or the concept. Once again, we squeeze a new editor to death before he even has a chance to look around. I suggest that Editor:Douglas ignore the naysayers and focus on improving the article from other sources. As a note to him he should know that other editors that support his efforts are, more than likely, doing some research to assist in that process.--Buster7 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per SMSpivey, widely used in academic literature. Ikip (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the article has been completely re-written and trimmed back to a manageable stub since nomination. I would suggest that those of you who are suggesting a delete re-evaluate the article. SMSpivey (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It still needs WP:RS to prove that it is a phrase used with any regularity or consistency by any one in sufficent numbers and weight to make it notable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Per SMSpivey, Buster7, and Ikip.  Article needs and will be developed, but is certainly a notable economic theory deserving of an entry. EagleFan (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the description in the article doesn't lead me to believe that this is anything other than a synonym of social democracy. Therefore delete and merge any useful content to there Cynical (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment if this article is not deleted... and that may be the best course because of confused notability and application of the term... then a redirect to social democracy as per suggestion by Cynical, may be a good option. If the article is deleted... then a brief mention... very brief, of this term could go on the social democracy page in relation to that term. skip sievert (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Neologism? Are you serious? Look here, it is a term known since 1960s! Didn't read the article though, it may require more sources. Anyway it is notable. Netrat (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2009 (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.