Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Economic Growth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Pigman☿ 07:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Economic Growth

Future Economic Growth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Blanked a couple of times by an anon claiming that it's all WP:OR. Looks quite likely to me as well. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A bit more history of this can be seen in the Economy of India article, where this was added as a subsection in July, subject to some revert warring there, until it was finally split out into it's own article in early October by the same user who added it to the India Econ page in the first place. - -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep Would that the average article on wikipedia were this well written, sourced and encyclopedic. Keep and continue to source more thoroughly. A renaming could be in order, since the present title is very broad. Change to something like Economic forecasts of major nations. Decoratrix (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete True that the language and exposition are good. The contents are, however, original research. It is one person's projections of growth based on a model he/she has developed. Established investment research firms like Goldman Sachs are not aware of the model, as the very first para of the article states.

While attempts to develop new economic models are laudable, they should be done in the appropriate forums. Wikipedia can include only published research material. That was the reason this section was removed from its previous location on Wikipedia. The reason still holds. Of all the reference links, only one link substantiates the central argument of the article - an economic model which predicts a different outcome for the economic growth of India, China and the US than the one predicted by the Goldman Sachs report:

  4. "The Future of Space Exploration in the Age of New Giants. Gunjan Gupta.

This link is a slideshow by the same person who authored this page, hosted on a personal website. That does not constitute published research. The economic growth model explained in this article has been used only by this author; has never been published in any economic report, dissertation, magazine and the like; and has not been picked up by any financial institution. As such, it falls under the category of 'original research'.

ajoykt

  • Delete this is clearly a piece of OR... reads like a college paper.Balloonman (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR essay. CitiCat ♫ 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

gunjankg

However the content in the Wiki page is complete by itself and does not require the presentation to be understood. It is based on raw data for various countries/years mentioned. Links need to be added for the same and I will be adding references over time- references to the data is easy to come by. None of the projections in the article are based on any non-obvious facts- and are simply a discussion about various ways in which future economic growth can be measured. References are widely avaiable for economic growth based on PPP and I will be adding the same too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.120.104 (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ajoykt Linucon is a Linux expo/Science fiction exposition. A presentation there cannot be the basis for an article on economic growth projections. The content may not require the presentation to be understood. But it does require a reference to published research to be not OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoykt (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 November 2007 (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.