Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resource-based economic model


 * 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. Concerns include content forking and POV/promotional content. -Scottywong | verbalize _ 16:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economic model

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This AfD nom is a little longer than the usual, but the article itself is long and has a list of different references so I'm trying to summarize everything here to make it easier for others.

To start with, we already have the following (older) articles: The Venus Project, The Zeitgeist Movement, and Resource-based economy.

The 'resource based economic model' as described in this given article is basically exclusive to The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement: it is not discussed anywhere without mentioning either TVP or TZM. And both of those barely pass the notability standards. (Though they could be made better with some of the sources used in this article here.)

Also, TVP as the originator of this concept uses the term 'Resource-based economy', this term is also used by the majority of the secondary sources. 'Resource-based economic model' is the term used by TZM to refer to the same thing.

But moving the article to the other title won't fix anything because:

The whole of the 'Principles' section and most of the rest of the article is sourced from primary sources — with its length giving undue weight to what the advocates of this concept (TVP & TZM, no one else really) have to say. It's like this article primarily exists to promote this concept (by depicting it favorably and in great length). Only the criticism section is fairly sourced from secondary sources, and this section isn't very good either:

It starts off with a summary of a RBE-critical writing by economist Robert P. Murphy, so far so good, but then the paragraph is finished with a line of original research, criticizing the criticism ("...the author is unclear as to how precisely the..."). Next paragraph summarizes criticism from an article published on some website called The New American (not a reliable source, as far as I can tell) (the article itself is largely about TZM and TVP), this one is also finished with a line subtly implying that the criticism is faulty. The third paragraph has almost nothing to do with RBE, its references certainly don't. Fourth p is unsourced, by the looks of it RBE-favorable original research by the editor. Fifth p is a summary of an Orlando Sentinel article: the article isn't really a serious criticism of RBE, it's a superficial opinion piece about Jacque Fresco (of TVP) (the most serious criticism in the article is: "he talks fast and tends to go off on tangents" -- this does not give notability to RBE). The sixth p is not about RBE-criticism but a quote from an article about a TZM event.

So I propose deleting this article, because it seems to have been put here for promotional purposes (and would need a total rewrite), and it duplicates existing articles (on subjects that are more notable than this one). The few things that are of value can safely be moved into the other articles, primarily the TVP one but maybe Resource-based economy too. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite. Delete as Hopeless promotionalism. (For my reasons for changing, see below.)  This has to be covered--there are significant independent references, I really dislike trying to make too any articles, but in this case, (1) the Venus Project could conceivably be a redirect to a section here, but the name is notable in its own right. (2) similarly the film, The Zeitgeist Movement. (3) Resource based economy is really a page showing the use oft he term in two completely different ways, of which this is only one--the other & I think usual meaning is an economy based upon primary production of natural resources, rather than agriculture or services or manufacturing. (4). The real duplication is with the second half of the article on Jacque Fresco. The article here is obviously excessive, and what it needs is drastic editing. The question, as often, is whether this will be possible in view of the advocates who will ry to edit it. There is no sharp cut off between explaining a theory and advocating it--they are to some extent interdependent, because to advocate it, you must first explain it, and, if it makes any sense at all, describing it does serve as advocacy. Unfortunately we have no workable mechanisms for resolving disputes about article content in situation like this, unless a significant proportion of the community can be mobilized to resist the zealots (or unless there are counter-zealots). What we have done in the past sometimes is to delete an article if the zealots get hold of it and cannot be dislodged, on the principle that a promotional article which in practice cannot be rewritten neutrally for whatever reason should be deleted. it's a kludge, and really IAR, since it it is derived from the occasional failure of some of the assumptions behind the possibility of NPOV in Wikipedia. I suppose I could rewrite it,  but I do not like  the work necessary to try to understand the wild excesses of jargon and rhetoric and reduce them to an encyclopedic article about something I think is fundamentally hollow,  which I think is the usual feeling around here, and why the advocates often have free run. But to see the possibilities,  I've made a few   cuts of the worst of the promotionalism & duplication to see what happens: I removed the linkfarm see also's and  & I've rewritten the entire section  on Principles into   plain English. Slightly easier than expected, because I've done it before-- a good part is the routine removal of adjectives as with all promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the article's title though? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will rewrite There is considerable work that must be done to rewrite the article. I have many sources that can be used in the rewrite. If others instead agree that the info in the article belongs in other articles perhaps such as The Venus Project, a section in Resource-based Economy, or in Jacque Fresco, then I will contribute to that instead. Personally, I think it is more appropriate if given a section in the Resource-based Economy article.--Biophily (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it's unwarranted to have an article this lengthy (because of the primary sources and OR problem) — it'd be better to write a shorter version and keep it in the Resource-based economy article. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I will rewrite it, in a grammatical manner no less In addition to the fact that someone completely destroyed the syntactically valid system of the RBEM article with numerous errors in spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure, it was also extremely unnecessary to notion for the deletion of the article itself only 1 month into its conception. Does no one here understand the concept of patience? Given that I have already established both the model of a RBE itself and the organizations associated with it to be socially and academically notable, it therefore deserves a coherent article in its own right. To the person who utterly disorganized the RBEM article, I kindly ask you to stay away from such endeavors in the future. Sincerely, Zach Lipsitz (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for typos; I was trying, undoubtedly too rapidly, to condense the ridiculously wordy original. I did not change the organization, I just changed the level of headings. I certainly did remove material. It does not need expansion. It needs further contraction. If the ed. above can rewrite it and still make it somewhat shorter, that would be a very good thing.  I continue to oppose putting it into Resource based economy. Everyone but the followers of this model regard it as a totally different concept. There is one problem in organization: I found it hard to differentiate the material on the model and that on the Venus project. Much of what was said applies to both.  DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An apology is not needed, my friend. I understand your desire to simplify the article, and, in accordance with this principle, I have attempted to remove unnecessarily complex terminology from it. However, there are a few problems which I think should be discussed. Firstly, why do you say the article needs to be contracted? Isn't that just your own personal opinion? I could just as easily say it needs to be expanded so that the entire concept of an RBEM can be covered comprehensively. To be more succinct, I just want to understand the basis of your desire for brevity. Secondly, what exactly is the discrepancy involved in the the notions of a Resource-Based Economy and a Resource-Based Economic Model? Although The Venus Project seems to typically use the former term in their discourses, the latter is nonetheless applicable to their theory since it utilizes the phrase "model", suggesting a viewpoint or framework as such. Finally, there seems to be three routes which we as editors can take at this point which are relatively valid in stature: 1) move the article to another page, 2) keep the article as it is while improving it over time, or 3) shorten the article to the bare necessities. Deleting it does not seem appropriate, being that it is clearly a notable concept in the contemporary age. Sincerely, Zach Lipsitz (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: Rephrasing what I said in the nom, since my concerns have not been addressed: why I call for deletion is because the article duplicates (the purpose of) existing articles on the same topic. Not just one article but three. We don't need a fourth. And articles should be titled according to what a majority of secondary sources call the subject (WP:TITLE). It's not RBEM, it's RBE. And the reasons that I listed are the reasons why I don't just support merging the content into (the) other article(s). By me, the TVP article could/should be expanded, and a more modest/shorter version of the current RBEM content could be written for the section in the older RBE article. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully support Jeraphine on this. Let's merge the article on RBEM into the existing article on RBE. Moreover, a more modest version would also be more likely to be more effective, i.e., more likely to hold the attention of the average reader and create interest in the average reader to explore further by visiting the articles on TVP or TZM. (The articles on TVP and TZM should both be expanded.) And we have a decent number of verifiable, secondary sources (in addition to primary ones) to cite from to capture the essential principles and basic concepts of RBE (e.g. articles in the NYT and Huff Post, English translations of TheMarker and Globes, 5 RT TV interviews, and a TheMarkerTV interview [see the list of references on the Peter Joseph article for details]). Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Alternative Proposal A measure for consideration by all editors involved: what if we simply rename the title of the article to Resource-Based Economy (The Venus Project), and, from there, proceed to modify the article's content accordingly through the addition of secondary sources and the contraction of unnecessary text? Zach Lipsitz (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not merge that content into the TVP article? They're basically the same thing. I don't think there's a sufficient amount of sources to write two articles on (primary sources don't count). The problem is that the outside world hasn't given enough attention (notability) to the concept and specifics of RBE to write so extensively about it. Currently we have a very extensive piece of writing (the RBEM article as it is now), sourced from primary sources -- this is problematic because we're giving undue weight to what the advocates of the concept have to say.
 * And a further comment about the criticism section: the only thing that's valid and relevant about it is the Murphy paragraph, everything else needs to go. It's just filler to make the RBEM seem more notable. (As said above, The New American doesn't seem like a reliable/notable source to take any opinions from. Any random website can write about RBE, doesn't mean we can include the stuff on Wikipedia.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to contention one, why is an extensive discourse on the political philosophy of the Venus Project in the form of a specific article on the concept of a Resource-Based Economy an encyclopedically invalid measure? What about all of the other articles on various economic ideologies, such as those concerning capitalism, socialism, communism, syndicalism, etc., which are relatively lengthy in stature? On what basis do they deserve more attention than a RBE, which has likewise been discussed by millions of people? Zach Lipsitz (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to contention two, in what way is the criticism section an invalid addition to the article? Most of the paragraphs contained therein either address the notion of an RBE directly, are critical of its primary advocates, or are critical of its foundational premises (e.g., market abolition). Zach Lipsitz (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: although I recognize the legitimacy of transferring (some/most/all) of the RBEM article to the TVP page, I am simply interested to know why the concept itself cannot retain its own article. Zach Lipsitz (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) As already said, the description is all sourced from TVP. This is a problem. If no one else thinks the nuances are important then neither do we. (2) I addressed every paragraph of the criticism section right here in the nomination. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nomination. We already have far too much overlapping fringe-economic cruft; the fewer places it can be copy & pasted to, the further we reduce the neutrality problem. bobrayner (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  I have changed to Delete  because in the course of this discussion it has become clear that if we keep this in Wikipedia it will remain hopelessly promotional. The contention that we need several articles, since this is as important a concept as socialism or capitalism, is typical of the advocates of something out-of-the mainstream, to try to make as big a thing of it as possible. Anyone who makes such a comparison has shown themselves incapable of a NPOV; advocates of a cause are more difficult to deal with at Wikipedia than paid commercial editors, because they often--as here--lack all balance and willingness to compromise. Those selling a commercial product will accept any wording, just so it calls favorable attention to what they are selling; advocates of a cause tend to insist of the exact wording of their established positions, and most of our worst persistent problems at Wikipedia are due to such editors. (To take a current example, the commercial promotors of MMA would have caused much less harm here than did the fans.)
 * Among the signs of idiosyncratic and promotional writing, which the proponents have insisted on retaining, are
 * 1/  "As such" used here several dozen times in the beginning, middle, and end of sentences.    2/ Using the name of the model and the project several times in each paragraph, always in capitals. 3/linking everything linkable, including parts of words, some as   general as "universe", "war", humans,   2/ Repeated unnecessary use of "also" and "furthermore" sometimes both in the same sentence; similarly, "such as" and "etc." again sometimes both in the same sentence. The single worst such string I noticed is   "As such, each city would be geometrically circular in shape," 5/10 unnecessary words.  5/ repeating the same sentences several times in different sections. 6/ Using long quotes not just for accuracy, but to say everything yet again.
 * There's no irremediable harm in writing an article in such language, as long as you let other people correct it.
 * The criticism section repeats the views of its opponents, but only as its advocates portray them. (To make the opposition appear confused,  it mixes the criticism from the left and right without distinguishing them.) I had not yet gotten to rewriting it, though if I had it would have satisfied the advocates of this  model just as little as what I did rewrite.


 * A supporter wonders why the article should be abridged: it should be abridged because devoting too much space to something as relatively unimportant in the world as this is improper weight; Wikipedia has an objective way to decide which theories are worth extensive coverage, which are those that have had a wide influence. We do not confuse this with whether it deserves to have much great importance or influence; what we care about is that it does not yet have this--when it does, even those who are not its advocates will be interested in writing about it.  The supporter wonders whether I want to reduce the article because I do not subscribe to the theory: he misunderstands, for I have immensely greater sympathy for this sort of technological utopianism than most of the immensely more notable but immensely more dangerous political philosophies.
 * The article could only be accepted if the advocates stopped editing it. I've made a challenge to the supporters: I have made a few large edits correcting most instances of   excessive capitalization, excessive linking,  & empty phrases. This is the second time I've done the work; had I not really wanted there to be some coverage of this, I would hardly have bothered.  I've simplified wording a few times, but deliberately not yet removed the repetition yet, so that I cannot be accused of breaking the flow of the argument. I now ask the supporters: can you accept this? If not, either  the article must be removed to keep you from making an advertisement out of it, or you must be kept away from editing it.  It has happened before at AfD  that neutral people have tried to rewrite a   promotional article in order to save it--sometimes the promotors reject the changes, and the consequence has usually been that the article gets deleted.


 * But I am being a little unfair to the supporters, for Zach's third choice is actually a very good idea "3) shorten the article to the bare necessities." What he sees as bare necessities is what we mean by appropriately encyclopedic coverage--perhaps three or four paragraphs describing the theory, and then one or two of criticism. I'd like his help by abridging it--the need to write it concisely will automatically remove the promotionalism. But as usual here, OWNership will mean deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I continue to very strongly oppose the merge into resource based economy. RBE means something else--an extractive economy, rather than one that is agricultural or industrial. The only people using the term in the present sense are the advocates of the RBEM, and "resource-based" here is almost meaningless. I think why they use the term, is to say the economy is based on recognizing the limitations placed by the limit of available natural resources and the consequent need for conservation. We should not enshrine such a strained meaning. There was an earlier AfD for that article, which was prevented only by making it clear that their's was a special use. As with many social movements, they're trying to co-opt ordinary words into special meanings)  DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Following the same logic, would it not be fair to say the same thing about mainstream economists --- that they have co-opted the phrase into a special meaning (an extractive economy)?
 * Furthermore:
 * * Does the fact the mainstream economists may (or may not) have been the first to use the phrase automatically grant them perpetual ownership rights over it? In other words, do we have to accept that the phrase is their private property? (Implying they have the right to exclude all other uses of the phrase.)
 * * Why would it be impossible to share the phrase? After all, many phrases in English have multiple meanings.
 * * If the phrase was so important to mainstream economics, why was the original RBE article (on the usage of the phrase for extractive economies) so brief and skeletal?
 * Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * because there are relatively few people interested in editing here on major academic topics, so a few advocates of anything can dominate a field. notability  does not depend on how significant something is to the people at Wikipedia, butthe world in general.  DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per bobrayner above. Promotion in this area increasingly concerns me. Tom Harrison Talk 02:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Resource-Based Economy (The Venus Project), or something to that effect. Then copy edit the article. See WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Enough sources exist to base an article upon, so the topic does meet WP:GNG. See and  for starters. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to the NYT and HuffPo articles, there are also the translations of the Globes and TheMarker articles on RBE.
 * How about a disambiguation page to resolve the conflict? On the disambiguation page, we could name the two articles such that each would have a unique title. For example,
 * RBE (a term used for the economy of a country dependent to a large extent on natural resources) and
 * RBE (The Venus Project, The Zeitgeist Movement, the Technocracy Movement, etc.)
 * Clicking on the first link will take the user to page discussing the (already-existing) extractive-economy interpretation; clicking on the second will take the user to a discussion of RBE based on citations from secondary sources (for example, the sources listed above: NYT, HuffPo, Globes, TheMarker, etc.)
 * IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and/or redirect to one of the articles about the movement or project. The arguments made by experienced editors that this represents duplicative and excessive coverage of a very fringe concept, editing of which is made overly difficult by zealous promotionalism, appear convincing to me.  Sandstein   07:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Retain and/or rename the article and improve it over time As a result of the successive edits which have been made over the past week, the promotionalistic nuances which were previously existent within the article have mostly been eliminated, and what is left is a wikipedia page which is reliable, notable, and unbiased in stature. Whether the concept itself is "fringe" or not is based entirely on personal opinion and is essentially irrelevant to the sustainment of the article itself. As such, I therefore see no reason for the page to be deleted, especially when it can be developed over time through the addition of secondary sources and the subtraction of unnecessary language. If there is a discrepancy with the title, then, as I and other users have suggested, we can simply rename the article to Resource-Based Economy (The Venus Project). Zach Lipsitz (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No Zach, (1) it hasn't been changed in any significant way and all of the concerns still stand, (2) the lack of wide positive coverage by independent sources makes it fringe, not our opinions, and (3) while an AfD is not really a vote but a discussion, it is still a standard for everyone to !vote just once, you've done it twice now. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:05, 20 May 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.