English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Transformative 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 was delete. Keeper | 76 16:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Transformative economics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of the many articles created to promote the theories of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, in this case his Progressive Utilization Theory of economics. The problem appears to be that this is really a general phrase which the article creator co-opted in hopes of getting people to associate the idea with PROUT. The GBook searches tell the story plainly: searching for the phrase and excluding Sarkar produces numerous hits whose diversity shows that it isn't a term, while searching and explicitly including Sarkar or PROUT produces two hits: our article, and a book by Ravi Batra (a PROUT economist at SMU). We don't even get hits on other Sarkar books. Probably Sarkar's followers think his theories are transformative, but that's not a good enough justification for this article. Nobody will be surprised to learn that there aren't any secondary sources cited in the article. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete The term is generic, the article is misleading in that it implies otherwise. The article should probably be speedy deleted per CSD criteria # G11, 'Unambiguous advertising or promotion'. LK (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete, per LK; it should be an article about a more general mainstream term but its content is 100% coatrack for fringe content. bobrayner (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete. It seems simply promotional for the theory's source. There's no outside coverage of the idea to justify having an article. Ducknish (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2013 (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.