Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinky underwear problem

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 of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 22:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kinky underwear problem

Someone's attempt to promote their original research: non-notable -- essentially invisible -- economic question: gets all of 34 Google hits, none from .edu sites. Calton | Talk 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Royboycrashfan 00:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete, of course--He:ah? 00:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It does seem to be based on one of the cited references, http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/Chapter18.htm , which seems to be a real book--I don't think Verso is a self-publisher or vanity press, and the Amazon sales ranks ("381,895, 195,040 in Books yesterday") are just barely high enough to lift it out of that class. That reference really does mention "the kinky underwear problem," but the context—"In a class my frequent co-author taught at American University, this issue came to be known as 'the kinky underwear problem.'"—makes it a nonce word or neologism, not a real term in widespread use. The reference does talk about "mak[ing] consumption proposals anonymously."
• Delete, neologism, not an accepted term in significant real use. Not quite original research perhaps, but the proportion of personal essay relative to verifiable, sourced, accepted material is way too high, and I don't think the ParEcon book is notable enough to need an encyclopedia article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, original research. --Terence Ong 05:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom - No OR. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 09:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism 31 hits for the phrase on google as well. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-08 18:02Z
• Weak Keep - I've found more hits on dissident books problem. It may be more appropriate to recreate this article under that title. Sethimothy 01:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrash Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. While it seems that the article, in its current form, generates next to no hits on Google, it is possible that an economist might know this problem by a name other than either of the two mentioned. Perhaps the article should be mentioned somewhere where an economist could take a look at it and give it the proper name. It seems like a notable theory, but I guess it just hasn't been expounded fully yet, at least not under this name. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 01:27, 11 April 2006 (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.