Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic flywheel

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic flywheel

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable concept. Perhaps the book it came from was, but this certainly doesn't warrant it's own article. Mesoderm (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Good to Great which has got a lot of coverage (that cited and e.g.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]) but no evidence that this is a widely-used concept apart from the book. And the book article isn't so long it needs to be split. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GDP failed to forecast or forewarn the 2008 banking collapse. GDP looks at the economy as if it is static and only the BIG contributors considered in GDP matter. Economic Flywheel notices that large contributions from the GDP components can have big effects, but many contributions from tiny labor efforts, not measured by GDP, can add, and their absence, can detract from economic health. A significant retooling of economic metrics is required to survive the Peak Oil economic realities. Life requires energy, less affordable energy, less life. Economic Flywheel illustrates this fact. GDP also fails to note that Government Debt can both contribute to GDP with output and drag by the need to service and repay that debt. --BillJamesMN

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another Non-Notable Neologism. I'd suggest a merge, but this seems promotional in intent and a bit of a POV push as well. I haven't checked out the copyright status of that graphic, but dollars to donuts that license is defective as well. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speaking as a doofus with a degree in Economics, that graphic is, at best, original research and POV horsepuckey. It's very pretty, but the content is gibberish. The explanation of what is shown on the rights page has nothing to do with the content whatsoever. If this piece is kept, that graphic needs to be hauled straight to MfD. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more: zero footnotes showing; this entire piece is Original Research as nearly as I can tell. Written in the form of an original essay. Delete is right, merge is wrong; if the concept relates to the book in question, that piece should be developed appropriately through the normal editorial process, which includes footnoting the source, including page numbers. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the graphic contained in this piece for deletion. The debate appears at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_July_23. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carrite: both the article and the graphic, both of which are standing right on the line of copyright violation. Even if somebody added sources, I am not sure that this neologism is yet notable. I also agree that it is little more than a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 25 July 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.