Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Productive and unproductive labour


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Productive and unproductive labour

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is pure WP:SYNTH. The sources cited don't so much discuss the topic of the article, but rather provide grist for the article's thesis. It reads like a third-rate term paper in a bad way. It's possible that there is an article to be written with this title, but this article has empty intersection with that hypothetical one. I think it'd be best to start from a clean slate. This nomination is related to this one: Articles for deletion/Unproductive labour in economic theory. I would have bundled them, but the other one's already been commented on, so I thought it best to keep them separate. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are a couple sources showing in the notes that indicate this is a matter of academic concern among adherents and students of the labor theory of value. The piece already at AfD on unproductive labour in economic theory should go away, this one should stay, in my opinion. That said, there are fairly large sourcing issues here that need to be rectified eventually. Carrite (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "It reads like a third-rate term paper in a bad way. It's possible that there is an article to be written with this title, but this article has empty intersection with that hypothetical one." — That's an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no doubt that the topic is notable (just look at the Google book and scholar search). It is a difficult topic to write a good article on; economic theorists have a range of differing and incompatible views on the topic, so we cannot rely on some generally accepted view, and even those who offer a review of various approaches often have their own strong (often Marxist) point of view. However, it is not an impossible task; there is sufficient agreement on how various notable economists viewed the topic (but not on how valid these views are) to allow for an NPOV OR-free article. --Lambiam 01:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was reading a paper by George J. Stigler that mentioned this issue just the other day. It described it as one of Adam Smith's great unfortunate sucsses. Perhaps if we include the arguments he makes the article would be more balanced. The topic is notable, in any case, and any instance of wp:synth can be addressed on a case by case basis. Yaniv256 (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw&mdash; Obviously I missed the boat on this one.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (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.