Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple economy


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Purple economy

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The articles for Purple economy and Cultural footprint should be deleted as they are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. I have found no evidence that either topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Both concepts are promoted by Diversum, the French organisation which started the Prix Versailles and the articles were created and maintained by single purpose accounts also linked to the Prix Versailles. Ten of the accounts promoting the Prix Versailles and the Purple economy across sixteen different language Wikipedias have been confirmed as sockpuppets.

The purple economy article is about cultural aspects of the economy, while the phrase is also used to refer to caring aspects. See also
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 175
 * Articles for deletion/Prix Versailles
 * Articles for deletion/International Appeal of 7 June 2020 TSventon (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with the motion by User:Spiderone upon reading the investigation the COI affecting the aforementioned articles as well as the articles themselves. Purple economy is a promising topic but I think it is best for it to be red-linked and recreated by an impartial author (especially seeing how the article is badly organized and hard-to-read as is). -- A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  16:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 12:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is well-established and has been the subject of varied and serious references. The concept has been endorsed by Eric Maskin, Edmund Phelps, Christopher Pissarides, among others. These credentials take this to the highest level in economics. It would make no sense to delete the article. I myself do not know enough to expand on it, but I can try to re-work it. I will trial it on the article's talk page. Lagoyan (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC) This account was opened on 30 August, after the start of this AfD discussion. TSventon (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It is TNT case. Looking all the socks that have been blocked, they have completed by far the majority of work, apart from that IP address editor in the last few days. On top of that I can't find any academic sources confirm it is a genuine concept. I lack confidence in saying it is notable from that aspect. Certainly there is many sites that seem to have latched onto it. But certainly, if notable, then it needs a COI free new article and it is clear case for WP:TNT.   scope_creep Talk  12:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * scope creep, the IP editor is another single purpose account so I have added them to the COI discussion at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. TSventon (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is super suspect, coming in like that. It is so obvious. Well done, getting all this sorted. Remember to notify them.   scope_creep Talk  12:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Its genesis is by sockpuppets as is most of the contributions. Blow it up and start over again. WP:TNT-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 16:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, cross-wiki spam, bad faith article. We should not entertain this behavior by keeping these articles. MER-C 11:59, 6 September 2021 (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.