Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive utilization theory

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 No consensus. Walton Need some help? 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive utilization theory

Progressive utilization theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not a single secondary source given. Reads more like a manifest than an encyclopedia article. --Pjacobi 20:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pls also compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social cycle theory (Sarkar) --Pjacobi 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. The deletion recommendation is not supported by good reasoning. If there is a POV issue it is handled by a specific procedure devoted to that issue. Budfin 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep this one. Fully agree with the above statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuckskin (talk • contribs) — Bhuckskin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


KEEP! The article should be marked as "needs work," not deletion!! This is a very important topic that needs to be covered, and we can use the present article as an excellent basis. It's already the sixth or seventh hit in google. Aschoeff 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A bad Wikipedia article on the first ranks in Google is something bad not something good. --Pjacobi 07:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, but by that logic, most if not all of wikipedia would have been deleted in the early days. I think you're setting the initial bar too high for a fledgling article. I had no idea of what prout was until today, which signifies the importance of the article existing in the first place, so that it can gain more exposure and begin to evolve and be improved upon. Perhaps you would like to do a comprehensive re-write? Aschoeff 08:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete unreferenced- seems like an origional theory.--Sefringle 03:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The long list of websites at the bottom of the page is where they must be drawing their source material from. I say do not delete, and I volunteer to look into this and edit the article to give some references. Give me a few days as I have a big church event this Sunday I'm preparing for. Aschoeff 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge: This is a tough case, but googling for Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar reveals that he isn't an economist. He's yet another Indian spiritual leader type, involved in politics, and this theory is barely mentioned on his bio page. I think it would be more appropriate to put this on his bio page and summarize it there. Mangoe 13:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with and redirect per Mangoe. And Papayae. Tomertalk 22:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • merge as suggested. It is absolutely not a valid WP article on its own--a essay on a personal concept of spiritualized human affairs dressed up to sound like social science. It i not a fledgling article capable of expansion from sources, its a non-notable essay based on non-independent websites affiliated with the same guru.DGG 00:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Googling the names and terms yields contradictory information. If anything, this "theory" should be summarized under the person its attributed to.WikiFishy 00:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I've spent a couple hours looking around on the web, and I am convinced that there are no reasonable grounds for either deletion or merging. My argument follows below, and I apologize for the irritating list, but paragraph form would have taken too long.
  1. There exists a global following for this theory, which is ~fifty years old and has been written about and expanded upon by many more people than just the original author.
  2. There exists active study and practical implementation of this theory, for instance in Venezuela: [3].
  3. A strong association to Sarkar is not sufficient grounds for merging, in fact that is how science works, by naming conjectures and theories after whoever came up with them. That isn't even the case here, as his name isn't nominally associated with the title "Progressive Utilization Theory." See for instance the Renner-Teller effect.
  4. Saying he is not an economist implies a requirement of academic review, which is absolutely not required on wikipedia (and is kind of the whole point). If someone comes up with some theory about something, and a numerically and socially relevant number of people decide to study, follow, and expand upon it, that is sufficient grounds to recognize it as a kind of neologism.
  5. Even if Point 4 is a consideration, I quickly found two books explicitly on the subject on Amazon, which implies some sort of review, if only economic on the part of the publisher(s). Sarkar was not mentioned in either of the titles.
  6. My first reaction when looking at the websites about "prout" was to also be turned off by the new-age-y culture-vulture-y Indian-guru-y John-Lennon-gone-wild method of its presentation and association. But at least within me this is mostly an inherently racist and elitist reaction that I personally believe is wrong and invalid.
  7. I believe Point 6 is relevant in considering if the theory can be eluted from its new-age-y associations. Wikipedia is the ideal place to do that by the likes of us skeptics, is it not?
  8. The criticism of the current article reading like a manifest is more of a stylistic concern, which means the article needs to be marked as needing revision, rewriting, and sourcing. As such that does not speak to the validity of it being a separate article on wikipedia, the argument for which I believe is sufficiently addressed in points 1-7.
Best regards, Aschoeff 01:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. US economist Dr. Ravi Batra has written several books on Prout, including Prout and Economic Reform in India and the Third World as well as devoting space to it in many other books and refereed journal articles. This theory includes ideas on a quadri-divisional economic structure, moving focus of economic activity away from investment to consumption and how to make the economic process involving humanity sustainable from an environmental perspective as well as the eradication of poverty in order to meet the economic, social and cultural needs of all. The original discourses by Sarkar on Prout number 21 volumes. The core of these ideas have been published in a compendium volume Proutist Economics. Just because the ideas are ahead of their time and have not prominently configured in the orthodox debate of neo-classical economic theory, reflected in fewer Google hits (in itself a dumb criteria for notability), does not mean they are not important, which they are.Ramayan 08:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Frankly, most of the points made in the last two comments sound like in-uiverse to me. The article on Batra says specifically that nobody has paid any attention to the theory.:"However, due to his unorthodox and controversial views, and the eventual predictive failure of his bestseller, Batra fell out of favour with the mainstream academic community."
A walled garden: a guru, a disciple, and the books they publish about each other. Some others may know their names, but the theory is more than adequately covered in the article on Batra. DGG 21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, article retention policy does not care about any (white) American academic saying "yea" or "nay" about it, as this is wikipedia, and not your peer-reviewed economic or social science journals. Moreover, HE ACTUALLY HAD A BESTSELLER! It doesn't matter if you don't like it, it doesn't matter if it's not all predictively correct. By your logic we should remove cold fusion as an article, and perhaps merge Dianetics with Hubbard's Bio, or maybe put Aikido in Ueshiba's bio since they still refer to him as "The Master?" Clearly that should not and is not going to happen, and it shouldn't happen here with Prout. Your "walled garden" comment can only arise from not actually looking at any of the points made above. If you would like to tritely dismiss all of the points I made and Ramayan made, then perhaps you should start with recognizing that our points sweepingly dismissed the basis for every merge and delete comment posted here, including yours, but did so on a factual and specific basis. Your "guru and disciple" comment is just plain incorrect; There is an entire institute devoted to Prout in Venezuela! What I can't believe is I walked into this by chance, I have nothing at stake here aside from adherence to wikipedia policy and truth, yet my couple of hours of investigation plainly showed that what you are saying is just not true. I am convinced that the "delete and merge" crowd is conflating this with a POV issue, so we need to move to that venue and end this charade. Unbelievable. Admin, please? Aschoeff 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment. For clarity, this is a theory of P.R. Sarkar and not of Ravi Batra. Batra has, however, been active at fleshing it out. There is no question that this theory is an important contribution, if only because it is based on the ancient cosmology of the Vedas. However, there is much more to it than that. It is a novel theory which claims to contrast and trancend both Capitalism and Communism. There are sections on both of those economic theories, or would you have them merged, respectively, with the bios on Adam Smith and Karl Marx? Ramayan 22:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of beating a dead horse a bit more, the subtext of their rationale goes something like this: because the Soviet Union fell in 1989, I guess Communism should go under Marx's bio, but because there are so many Capitalist countries chugging along like mine (USA), that warrants a separate article. Aschoeff 22:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm always in favour of a good dose of sarcasm!
But: Marxism is easily seen to be relevant, by the sheer number works criticising it. Did PROUT got enough reception that even a single book was written criticizing it?
That was an extreme example to show how evaluation based on such criteria is unnecessary.Aschoeff 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Pjacobi 20:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's important, it just needs work. 124.187.23.114 07:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a new economic theory not implemented yet in any country, but being tested partially in Venezuela. It has a place here, and I don´t understand quite well why somebody proposed it for deletion. We may agree or not with it, but it deserves to be on the wikipedia as a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xanirudha (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
    • This doesn't appear to be an economic theory at all, at least not to anyone who has made it through Economics 101. All the article produces is some highly platitudinous principles which don't seem to add up to anything like a system. If someone could point out refs from the economic community, there might be some hope of establishing notability. As it is, there's no evidence of that. Mangoe 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't claim to just be an economic theory, and if you would please read the above points I made and Ramayan made, you will find the answer to the issues you raise. But, just to be thorough, once again, wikipedia isn't a peer-reviewed economic or social science journal, so those criteria do not apply.Aschoeff 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, they do. The use of the word theory implies scientific intent, an intent which appears throughout the article. Therefore it most certainly is subject to peer review. Frankly, for Wikipedia to be credible, it should also be subjected to the same review, but one cannot have everything. Mangoe 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This issue was also addressed above; even preposterous ideas can call themselves a theory for the purposes of deserving an article on wikipedia. Aschoeff 06:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While this does need some work on the presentation, the content is inspiring. 9 May 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.