Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molecular economics

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 speedily deleted as a violation of WP:POINT. FCYTravis 21:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Molecular economics

Violates WP:NOR, probably hoax associated with Arthur W. Baron which is AfD'd above Peyna 04:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: sources cited, this is not an example of NOR. Google has 9,660,000 hits for molecular economics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfDariusAlexander (talk • contribs) 23:51, December 1, 2005
• 100 google hits for "molecular economics" (which is what caused me to initiate the Baron AfD). Crackpottery OR BS. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As stated above, no Google hits for "Arthur Baron" "molecular economics" see [1]. According to Baron's article he would have been 14 when he wrote the book on molecular economics. Two Google results for "molecular economics" see [2] - none mentioning Bacon. Three Google Scholar results with none supporting this usage [3]. This is simply not a significant form of economics. Capitalistroadster 05:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Arthur W. Baron article is a mess and has erroneous information. He is, however, a real person, and the book is real. See: http://www.dartlog.net/2002/06/congratulations-mr-baron.php --AaronS 05:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, a weblog comment posted 5 minutes before you wrote that comment. I am impressed. Peyna 05:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Wild speculation.--AaronS 05:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not wild speculation. See the google cache for the page [4]. Also notice that the "reference" has a link for "comments" while the other postings at that time do not. Apparently such a feature was not added to the web page until a much later date. I also find no evidence of any such award existing. Nice try, but find something more productive to do with your time. Peyna 05:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Also see the Wayback Machine cache from October 2004 [5]. Peyna 05:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Why would you find evidence of such an award? There's no reason to assume that you would find it on Google. As I said in the other AfD page, the option for comments is decided by the author of the post.--AaronS 05:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur W. Baron, delete. Uncle G 06:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no such field. Farce.--MONGO 06:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per all of the above. Ugh. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 07:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although it does appear that "molecular economics" is an actual concept - or should I say there are several concepts out there with that name per Google - none of the pages that I can find seem to coincide with the article or this Arthur Baron fellow. See for example [6]. 23skidoo 12:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable unless far better evidence is provided prior to close of discussion. At the very least, we need an ISBN is given for the single cited source and easily verifiable evidence that the book exists. Google books shows no hits on Subjectivist Labornomics and no hits on Arthur W. Baron. If this were an important theory and book, it is almost certain that a 1999 book itself or references to it would show up in Google Books. The University Press of New England's complete author/title index shows a book by Mary Baron entitled Wheat among Bones and one by Barron, Jonathan N on Jewish American Poetry but nothing resembling the cited book. Looks, sounds, feels, tastes and smells like a transparent hoax; the onus is on the contributor to show othersize. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Molecules have no money. Ridiculous formation, non-existent "science": all dismal and no science. Just a hoax. Geogre 16:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. See the Arthur Baron AfD for related confirmation of hoax.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 16:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - So outright ridiculous that it doesn't even border on pseduoscience. Absolute hoax, absolutely not funny. - Hahnchen 17:05, 2 December 2005 (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.