Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inevitability thesis

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 no consensus. This has been relisted thrice, and no consensus has emerged. Continuation of discussion regarding this article can always continue on its talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inevitability thesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Original research, fails WP:GNG. Pulling together ideas under a term more often used in multiple fields and in multiple ways not at all covered by the article (i.e. appears to be someone's pet term). Sources are insufficient but I'd also argue that even if a few more sources turn up the concept is insufficiently different from technological determinism to merit a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps an administrator can tell us whether this qualifies for speedy deletion as G4—two articles with the same name have previously been deleted. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe G4 is for material that was deleted via AfD whereas it appears the previous deletion was a PROD. I don't see a second deletion, but I do see a restoration after the PROD? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right about the pages in the deletion log—but I think this article has been deleted at AfD before under slightly different names; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The theory of inevitability and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inevitability theorem. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those two may be related, but I'd be skeptical: they're also commonly invented terms in academia, as is "inevitability thesis". Scholar.google.com shows these terms are used by dozens of people, sometimes with their name attached like "Ash's inevitability theorem" or "Bachman's inevitability theorem", to refer to different ideas. Agyle (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Road to Serfdom. The inevitability thesis is something associated with F. Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom. The thesis is that any amount of central government control inevitably leads totalitarianism, i.e., a road to serfdom. The paper Hayek, Samuelson, and the logic of the mixed economy? is a secondary RS that discusses his thesis and and its reception. I was unable to find much evidence that the term is used widely with respect to technology. Of course, the rhetoric of inevitability is a much used rhetorical device to convince someone of a political position or future outcome. I agree that the article as it stands is OR. This topic is best redirected to the use that has some coverage. --Mark viking (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, do not redirect. [See new position below] There are dozens of different inevitability theses mentioned in scholarly journals, and it's difficult to locate sources on this one without rudimentary information about its origins, like who came up with it, when and where it was first written about, etc. The Wikipedia article's three cited sources do not seem to mention the term at all, from what I can tell. I'm opposed to redirecting to The Road to Serfdom; while other sources have used the term in discussing the book, the book itself doesn't seem to mention the term at all, and the Wikipedia article on the book doesn't use the term. Agyle (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge lede to Daniel Chandler and redirect there. After further research, I'm fairly certain the "inevitability thesis" as defined (i.e. "once a technology is introduced into a culture...what follows is inevitable development of that technology") was first published by User:Bacab in this article in 2007, and spread wildly since then, generally attributed to Daniel Chandler's 1995 lecture notes which User:Bacab cited in this article. It's a catchy term with a quotable definition. Chandler apparently never used the term, or stated anything close to the thesis' wording, but many bloggers, students, lecturers and scholars now discuss "Chandler's inevitability thesis" at length. I cited three independently-published reliable sources in the article, which are based on the article, but only the 2008 source discusses the topic at length, which is why I favor merging over keeping. The sources are wrong, but Wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Agyle (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge may be appropriate, but while the present text may primarily be about Chandler's idea, there appear to be other "inevitability theses" with similar if not greater visibility out there (like Hayek's, but it's not clear to me that any one is most prominent). So I'd hesitate to say redirect. I suppose if we find it's primarily Chandler and Hayek it could be handled by a redirect template on whichever it redirects to. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an instance were Wikipedia practice conforms with common usage. Whether Chandler called it the inevitability thesis or even invented it is irrelevant. See List of misnamed theorems: if we refused to use names on that basis we'd have almost no names for anything. (I'm wondering if a disambiguation page might be the best solution, but not sure.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation would certainly be needed if there were multiple articles covering different inevitability theses, for example if someone writes an article on Hayek's inevitability thesis or discusses it in the article on Hayek. Last I checked, only Bacab's ("Chandler's") inevitability thesis was covered in Wikipedia, which is why I currently favor redirection to Chandler, if the article is merged there. Agyle (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 14:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page or possibly a set index page, point to Hayek's at The Road to Serfdom, and Chandler's at Daniel Chandler. And yes a two item disambig page is possible if neither topic is primary. And neither looks that way to me. --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2014 (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.