Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Productivism


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. -Doc ask? 00:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Productivism
This is a concept so fringe it's non-encyclopedic. Googling for it gets a whole load of Wikipedia mirrors, a few comment pieces which have it in 'inverted commas', and some legit mentions of it in an agricltural context. We might, just, be able to have it in an agricultural sense, but I would prefer a delete. The Land 14:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * keep. criteria should be NPOV and VERIFIABILITY and not "fringe". discounting fringe concepts is bad science and bad wikiness. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No

"Jimbo Wales - 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in....Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia."

Also, a search on google that combines "productivism" with its major critic Amartya San gives several page hits on the concept

http://www.google.com/search?q=Productivism+Amartya+Sen+&client=netscape-pp&rls=com.netscape:en-US
 * Well, it seems to mainly come up with documents where Amartya Sen is present, but 'productivisim' is hard to find: except of course for the Wikipedia mirrors, of which there are many. I'd suggest that most of the article we have is a synthesis of occasional uses, for which there is no clear definition. The article constitutes original research and the best way to deal with the concept is in a a note or two in some other articles. The Land 15:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Another criteria is WP:NOR. This particular article has no sources. It sounds truthful and logical, but so do many original items. This article has been here a while, and many have added to it, but there are no sources yet.  If there are some sources listed that support the article before the end of the AFD time, I would be pleased to swap to a Keep.Obina 15:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've put up an 'unsourced' sign, to add to the chances that Obina's dream comes true. Lukas 15:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a tag asking for sourcess should be added.

If you go beyond the first couple of pages in google, you can actually find the term used copiously. I have traced it to Christopher Lasch and Anthony Giddens

and this essay

http://www.aare.edu.au/97pap/blacj494.htm

cites this book

Giddens, A. (1995) Beyond Left and Right: The future of radical politics. Polity Press.

as a source of the concept.

in fact, a google search pairing Giddens with Productivism http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=com.netscape%3Aen-US&q=anthony+giddens+productivism&btnG=Search leads to a lot of google references. *bingo*

For me this really raises the issue of the limitation of using google as a test. All the WIKI entries percolate up to the top leaving the legitimate sources buried. I think we have to be careful.

That is, this concept seems to be obscure only to googleGinar 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sharing a title with a known concept is not sufficient for a completely unsourced and palpably OR essay that purports to explain the meaning of life. Durova 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

that's not what's happening here. This isn't trying to explain the meaning of life, its pointing to a common sociological term used to describe a very specific economic perspective (i.e., productivism) This entry explains the concept relatively well I think and all we need to do is find an appropriate source. I think it will be easy to find some material by giddens to save this one so KEEP I can't do it now but I will clean this article up and find an appropriate source for it in the next day or two. Ginar 00:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and unverifiable. To the person trying to defend the article, please sign your comments using ~ . Stifle 23:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * sorry, its me. Ginar 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC). No, this article is NOT unverifiable. In fact, I traced it back to the originating theorist already (i.e., Anthony Giddens). Obviously, its now verified. and what is OR?? See look here's another verification and here's a course syllabus where the term appears multile times . In the syllabus its even assocaited with green politics as it is in the wiki article. Now please, doesn't this mean the article requires cleanup and citation and not deletion?


 * Strong keep I've added a reference, and there are lots of citations from a wide range of fields from education to agriculture, and they all seem to refere to the same principle. I'm getting 23,100 google hits which isn't bad for an academic theory. Giddens himself is not just notable but hughly influential (New Labour) --Salix alba 01:20, 17 January 2006 (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.