Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public private trust


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Public private trust

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete - This article asserts the existence and notability of this type of body. However, none of the three sources cited even mentions the term. It appears to be largely unsupported original research. RolandR (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article fails general notability guidelines. Three references given do not mention this concept by name. There is only one contributor of significant content, and no reliable sources have been provided to establish the existence of this concept. Tried to nominate for WP:PROD and found this WP:AFD active. Why no tag on the article or notification to contributor ? Elizium23 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought using the template on the AfD page automatically tagged and notified. I will double-check in future. RolandR (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – A reference to the public private trust is contained in the follow up comment, in addendum to the blog at Debate Politics, "Empowering Americans" located here http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/monk-eye/178-empowering-americans.html#comments. I will enter it in place of the former quotation. A reference to the public private trust is also contained deeper in the article for "A Legitimate Stimulus Plan", although AWE does require an account to view content, as of late. I am performing a more comprehensive search of AWE in order to determine where the term was first used, the particular threads referenced were entered as summaries from previous reasoning. The search engine is slow and has been cumbersome, it seems that in order to keep the site up, the owner may have downgraded the hosting services. GeMiJa (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Why were references to original posts removed by Elizium23 GeMiJa (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Neither nationalisation, nor privatization, nor state socialism, nor state capitalism, nor common ownership, nor collective ownership nor corporatizaton, nor socialist market economy, nor communism, nor state socialism, nor mutualism addresses the inclusion of a public private trust in an economic system. Wherever the concept of a public private trust is to be included, it has been stated with a clear distinction from well known economic theories, so as to be obvious and without necessity for notoriety.  The economic theory of a public private trust should be available as a unique reference and, this afternoon, I shall go about soliciting inputs from curators of the various economic theories listed. GeMiJa (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read No original research, Verifiability, and Reliable sources. This should answer your questions. --Lambiam 14:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

GeMiJa (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Motives One inference may be that a peer review is recommended to determine originality for whom the concept should be attributed. Wikipedia documentation directs such vetting, intuitively, as a precaution to relieve itself of any burden which could arise from copyright violation, if such a thing were to be challenged.  Another inference may be that the assertions within the concept are not neutral, although documenting such assertions does not fail a requirement of article neutrality, and framing the content in neutral perspectives can be accommodated.  Perhaps a third person reference to oneself could be arranged.  Aside from attributing authorship, to me, the article seems little more than documentation.  Feel free to point out anything else if it should be obvious.  If wikipedia does not accept my contribution, it is okay, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvoEY6C5VNA.
 * Please translate the above comment into English. RolandR (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nominator. Blogs and Youtube would not count as reliable sources even if they mentioned the subject. Edward321 (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Documentation Versus Ad Hominem
The following excerpts are proposed to support opposition to deletion of the Public private trust article.

Introduction To Requirements -What counts as a reliable source
 * "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three."
 * Claim #1: Based upon the following Wikipedia excerpts, the article is compliant with the No_original_research criteria as a previous publication exists, unless the source of publication cannot be verified, which this proponent asserts as groundless.
 * Claim #1: Based upon the following Wikipedia excerpts, the article is compliant with the No_original_research criteria as a previous publication exists, unless the source of publication cannot be verified, which this proponent asserts as groundless.
 * "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability."

-Reliable sources and original research
 * "The No original research policy (NOR) has three requirements relevant to the Verifiability policy:

-Primary (original) research "In general, the most reliable sources are: ..., but see self-published sources for exceptions."
 * 1) All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. Wikipedia must never be a first publisher."
 * Claim #2: Based upon the following Wikipedia excerpts, the article is compliant with restrictions for What Wikipedia is NOT and with restrictions for No original research, as the article documents a proposal for an economic policy and does not make conjectures based upon research.
 * Claim #2: Based upon the following Wikipedia excerpts, the article is compliant with restrictions for What Wikipedia is NOT and with restrictions for No original research, as the article documents a proposal for an economic policy and does not make conjectures based upon research.
 * Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia can report about your work once it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.
 * Claim #3: -Based upon the following Wikipedia excerpts, the article may be made compliant with the criteria for Wikipedia verifiability, if it is presented as a self-published source.
 * Claim #3: -Based upon the following Wikipedia excerpts, the article may be made compliant with the criteria for Wikipedia verifiability, if it is presented as a self-published source.

-Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves
 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources."

GeMiJa 16:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to constructively reply to the validity of the included claims; and please provide citations from the respective documentation to support alternative claims or concerns.


 * Quoting from self-published sources:
 * Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
 * Somehow I have the feeling that this exception does not apply to you.
 * Above you quote from self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves; however, unless you, GeMiJa, are the concept of Public private trust, this article is not about you.
 * Then, even if we were inclined to accept these sources as reliable for the purpose of verifiability, there would still be the issue of notability. Hopefully the following quote from our general notability guideline is enlightening:
 * "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.
 * What we have here are only primary sources that are most definitely not independent of the subject (as required for notability purposes): they are by the inventor of this neologism. --Lambiam 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2011 (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.