Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial market

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 merge to libertarian socialism. Apparent consensus for a merge, & I agree it seems the sensible solution DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial market

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deproded by an anon IP. But still suffers from the same issue of WP:NEO - I am unable to uncover significant independent reliable source coverage of this neologism. All cites go back to the original author of the neologism either from pieces authored by him, or in journals closely affiliated with him. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In Google News, there are boatloads of examples of ill-informed writers using the term incorrectly as a pejorative, and possibly hidden within that large list, sources using it in its proper sense. I will admit that this is evidence of a less widespread use than would be ideal to show notability. However, that is not the whole story, and sifting through the pile of purple prose is unnecessary, as there are a great deal of instances of it being used in its proper sense to be found in Google Books and Scholar. Anarchangel (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NEO, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into libertarian socialism. I don't see a lot of independent sources for this term, but based on the article, it is a real economic concept developed by libertraian socialists. The other reason that I prefer merger is that artificial market has an alternative meaning refering to a real economic market that has been distorted by some non-market factor, or unusual business behavior. Here's an example of the other usage. NJ Wine (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as NJ Wine. I agree that this fits within the libertarian socialism article - if that were thought to be getting unwieldy the best course would be to divide the historical survey in that article from contemporary theories on how such a society might be ordered. I share NJ Wine's concerns about articles on an unusual or local use of a word or phrase in common use occupying that title in WP. It happens too often and is very confusing to users. If the article is kept it should be renamed to distinguish this use and users be offered a link to an article explaining the more common application of the term. --AJHingston (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems to be the common sense outcome. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.