Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic superstitions

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic superstitions

POV fork, title is inherently POV. Previous article Economics superstition was deleted via the VfD process, and this appears to be a reincarnation. User:Stirling Newberry has done some good work here, rewriting virtually all of the article text (the original article post, by 216.6.24.58, was almost incomprehensible) and has made it more encyclopedic, but it remains a primarily POV article and the title has inherent POV problems. Should be deleted (again). Firebug 13:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rename as Economic fallacies --Angr/_(comhrá) 14:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Should have been speedy deleted as a re-creation of Economics_superstition. User:Stirling Newberry does not seem to have rewritten the original article at all, but to have replaced it with an entirely new article. At this point it is not a re-creation so it does require discussion here. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless good source citations are given to counter the impression that this is a personal essay and "original research." Currently, no source citations are given that would indicate general use of this phrase to refer to a well-defined suite of misconceptions. The article says some ideas are held in low regard by "most practicing members of the field," but no such members are named. It says they are "often" described as superstitions but gives no specific examples of such usage. It says they are "fallacies" and "errors," but cites no authority identifying them as such. If this is paraphrased textbook exposition, then it should be sourced ("Economic textbooks enumerate a number of beliefs as 'economic superstitions.' For example, so-and-so's textbooks lists five: the belief that economics is zero-sum, etc. etc. etc.") Dpbsmith (talk) 18:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like original research. Megan1967 06:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Despite Stirling Newberry's efforts, this is still not an encyclopedic article. Most of these "economic superstitions" are not superstitions or even fallacies. They are approximations which are useful in some contexts and badly incorrect in others - the economic equivalent of assuming that the world is flat (which is, for example, one of the first simplifying assumptions in most Physics 101 classes). The choice to highlight these particular misconceptions is problematic. Many people mis-understand many things about economics. The various economics articles explain those topics much better. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I could make a case for turning this into a "list of common economic misconceptions" article with each entry linking to the economics sub-articles answering the question, but I generally don't like "list of" articles. Rossami (talk)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.