Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sow's ear effect


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Sow's ear effect

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence this phrase exists. All google hits are copied from the Wikipedia page. It is either a neologism WP:NEO or a dictionary definition WP:NAD. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: Appears to be (possibly) a sporting term where there is no defensive play. No evidence that it is an economic term related to GDP or supply-side economics. As per nom, en-wi is not a dictionary, nor a thesaurus. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – The phrase certainly exists, and it appears in a number of tertiary sources, including the Penguin Dictionary of Economics. The coverage doesn't go beyond a few sentences, but it does suggest that there might be more sources available: such a concept doesn't appear in a dictionary unless it's been thoroughly discussed in scholarly sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Old, unsourced, and I can't find any sources to support it. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.