Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex economy (essay)


 * 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sex economy (essay)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is essentially an essay about an essay which has not been shown to be notable in any way Obiter dictum (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe the fact that the essay has been reprinted twice in independent anthologies on Reichian body-psychotherapy, several decades after its original publishing, as well as its printing both in English and in Norwegian speaks volumes about its appraisal among people who are knowledgable about Reich's work in this field. Of course, the fact that the essay outlines the theory and practice of sex economy in an outstanding fashion certainly makes the information conveyed in the article no less invaluable to Wikipedia's readers. __meco (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt the topic of Sex economy is notable, and the essay in particular is a reliable source on the topic. But there is no reason Wikipedia should have an article on the essay rather than on the topic, cited to the essay. The article should at a minimum be moved, reduce its dependence on the essay as its primary source, and add additional sources and views on the topic. Obiter dictum (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for being schizophrenic.   Is the article about the theory of "Sex economy" or is it about the essay that described it?  The article can't seem to make up its mind which it is.    Under nearly all circumstances, academic articles themselves are not notable no matter how many times they are reprinted, but their subjects may be.    I could be convinced that there could be a 'Sex economy' article if there are multiple verifiable references to it from reliable sources (this essay, by itself, counts as one reference, not multiple).   The current references in the article are ancillary information, and don't address the actual subject of the article, which ostensibly is supposed to be about the essay itself and not the theory or theorists surrounding it.   I'm also a little unmoved by meco's WP:INTERESTING argument right now.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is presumably meant to be a summary of the general Reichian theory of sexuality, as interpreted by Raknes. I am not sure Reich ever actually used the phrase "sexual economy"--if he did, this article --and the article on Reich-- do not document it. It is therefore a neologism by Raknes, which does not seem to have come into general use. If there should be an specific article on Reich's views on sexuality, it should be written in a more general fashion with inclusion of references by others. If this particular interpretation is notable, there's no evidence of it provided in the article. The essay itself: like almost all scientific papers, the article by itself is not sufficiently notable for an article. (There seems to be an interesting walled garden of articles on Reichian concepts, mostly unreferenced--most are probably worth an article--all probably need to be re-examined from a NPOV.) DGG (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless heavily rewritten per DGG and Obiter. Reichian views of sexuality are eminently notable; Raknes's interpretation of them, not so much. The Raknes essay might easily be a source for an article, but not the focus. --Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per DGG. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for all the good reasons given above. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2008 (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.