Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewardship 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. MastCell Talk 20:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Stewardship economy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have a few concerns about this article which discusses the theory 'stewardship economy' which appeared in one self-published book by Julian Pratt in 2011. The vast majority of the references on the article predate this publication by some date and do not discuss this theory by name. I have searched for references to this theory in academic library and can find nothing that suggests to me it is a widely accepted and discussed term in this field. After discussing it briefly with the reviewer who accepted at AFC, two further web citations were found - I feel that these are blog coverage however rather than the level of academic commentary that I'd expect for a notable economic theory. For these reasons and also that the article was written by the author of the book which some might consider promotion of his theory/book I thought this would really merit some discussion to see what people think generally. nonsense ferret  14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I disagree that this staff-signed book review from an established publisher's recommendation list and this post from New Economics Foundation staffer, economist, and historian David Boyle are mere blogs in the non-institutional sense. They are non-trivial independent reviews satisfying WP:BK. But the article isn't about the free book, it's about the concept, a reformulated variation on land value taxation, an increasingly popular form of property tax including in Africa where hospital faculty M.D. and primary article author Julian Pratt has been doing development work. Accordingly, here are some mentions of the term prior to Pratt's use of the term in his book which represent the same concept: 2000, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2010, 2010, 2011. Presumably those books should be added to "further reading". EllenCT (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment from author

I agree that there is a reasonable concern about the notability of the topic and will be interested to see what consensus arises. The article does make several references to the self-published book of the same name. The references I put into the article do indeed predate the publication of the Stewardship Economy but are included to provide the reader with context and explanation, not to establish notability.

The thing that has convinced me of its notability has been the response of all three of the UK authors on land value taxation that I most admire. EllenCT has identified the response of David Boyle in his blog on the website of the New Economics Foundation, which is I think the most respected neutral UK body that is open to heterodox economic ideas. I have included in the article the review that Tony Vickers (author of Location Matters and Chair of the Lib Dems policy group on land value taxation and economic reform) that he submitted to the Lib Dem's magazine Challenge (www.stewardship.ac/reviews.htm) in which he describes it as 'a term that deserves to stick' and says 'There will be no success for us land-taxers until we can frame our policies within a stewardship context'. But the most weighty endorsement of the ideas comes from the influential newsletter of James Robertson (author of many books including Benefits and Taxes and founder of the New Economics Foundation) (http://www.jamesrobertson.com/news-jul11.htm). I was also delighted when the main UK publisher on Land Value Taxation, Shepheard-Walwyn, chose to promote it on their Ethical Economics website.

Whether these are sufficient indications of notability only the Wikipedia community can decide. But there is a real problem faced by anything in the field of heterodox economics, that there will never be a long list of articles in widely respected peer reviewed academic journals, because it lies outside the remit of such journals.

I will attend to the removal of bullets and addition of references to the benefits section, but that is I think a side issue. And my Africa credentials are interesting to me but not material.

Many thanks for giving your time to this Julianpratt (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: On first pass, given the placement in the economic footer and reading it, it sounded like an easy keep. Upon closer examination, I could find only one real source for this: A single book by one author.  Given that is is being shown as an important economic model, I would think there would be one reference on Google News, World Cat, National Library of Australia, National Library of Australia, the US Library of Congress, Newsbank, Google Books, the University of Canberra catalog, The Economist website, the Chicago Tribune.  I just could not find anything there to support this being an economy type of any note.  Reading the text and absent any other reliable sources based on independent search, it appears to border on Fringe theories. Of the sources listed by EllenCT, the first is trivial, the second references "product stewardship economy" and is unclear if it is the same topic (and also trivial), Sustaining the earth source is also trivial, the next source has more details but is also about  "product stewardship economy" which never appears in the article, Report - Water Resources Center, University of California, Issues 77-84 is a trivial mention to a resource stewardship economy and is trivial, the next reference is also trivial, and the same for the last. Not the same names and trivial.  Does not establish WP:GNG and shows major problems with WP:V for this article. --LauraHale (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; I agree with the nominator's rationale. Ironholds (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the nominator and also User:LauraHale above. I'd expect that if this was a notable theory the book would be widely available in libraries, but the only copy I was able to find anywhere in the world was in the Rhodes University library in South Africa.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Comment, I didn't notice initially, but the book also seems to be vanity published through Lulu. Not usually a good sign.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:32, 2 April 2013 (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.