Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil boom and bust cycles


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Oil boom and bust cycles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am actually copying the initial PROD rationale by User:Rhadow, which author of the article continues to delete and I don't want to engage in edit warring. "Notability. There are no other occurrences of "Rasizade's algorithm" on the web, that I could find. I have a suspicion that algorithm is an imperfect translation of the original language of this paper; that's why I cannot find it. This is a fine piece of writing, well referenced, and probably got its author an A. Nonetheless, it constitutes original research. Either that, or its plagiarized from its original author. In either case, that's disqualifying. Most of the references are printed books. That's not disqualifying; I just don't have access. The others are all on the other side of a paywall though." Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have addressed the concerns expressed in the deletion request in several ways: 1) Renamed (moved) the article. The new title more accurately reflects the essence of the article; 2) It describes a fundamental economic model and is a compendium of all scholarly work published in the field of rentier states; 3) This is not and cannot be a research article, as a scholarly research looks absolutely different, but an encyclopedic summary of all scholarship done in this field by leading researchers. It is enough to take a look at similar Wikipedia articles in the field of economic models and compare with mine; 4) I have re-edited the article accordingly to comply with the new title; 5) If the nominator suspects me of plagiarism, he has to prove it with citations. = Bilgeis (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an article about a single research paper that doesn't demonstrate the widespread impact of the research sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia. As to whether we should have an article on Oil boom and bust cycles, I believe Price of oil covers the topic already. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Price of oil, being just a technical description of commodity trends, has nothing to do with macroeconomic impact of oil booms and busts on rentier states, as well as the Dutch disease model has nothing to do with the Price of oil and therefore stands alone. My contribution is a continuation of the latter, as is clearly indicated in the text. As for the single research paper, the article provides references to multiple sources, where this model has been described, being a summary of all the mentioned scholarship. = Bilgeis (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge Delete but make use of sources It's good stuff, but it's the wrong kind of good stuff: an essay with a focus on a specific model. As noted above, Price of oil exemplifies a suitable encyclopedic take on the wider topic. I would suggest that the author incorporate some of the useful information and sources into that article. E.g., it seems to me (completely not my area tho) that Price of oil might very well do with a dedicated "Modelling" subsection. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it good stuff? Some of the sources listed at the end may be worthy, but "merge" means merging some text. The text here is a misleadingly referenced WP:OR essay. Take the second paragraph in the "Descending cycle of oil bust" section for example. The entire paragraph is referenced to a paper about the financial crisis that doesn't even mention the argument put forward in the paragraph.--Pontificalibus  (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the paragraphs are by turns too specific and too general; I think the material is good but the handling is poor (basically what makes the current article unsuitable). I didn't mean to imply that current text should be ported over, and you are right that it's not a "merge". Amended. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing to a mishap, in order to improve the article (which is the stated goal of Wikipedia), I have replaced the reference in the mentioned paragraph. = Bilgeis (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. We do not publish original research such as this. If the title were redirected, I would suggest to Energy policy. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2017 (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.