Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wall Street
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. Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Criticism of Wall Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sure what to say about this contribution, maybe you best see for yourself: The article seems unencyclopedic to me, an amalgamation of statements that have little to do with each other, and with the article's title. Pgallert (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to "Predictions of post-capitalist economics" since that seems to be the main topic of the article. After that keep or delete depending on the sources provided. It should be possible to find some sources for notable predictions. BigJim707 (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename for the same reason as BigJim707. GVnayR (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original essay. One might write an encyclopedic sourced article like Anarchist critique of contemporary American capitalism, for example, with a more narrow focus. This is a much too broadly drawn topic for anything meaningful to come of it. It's essentially a trojan horse for POV as well. Focus and source. Carrite (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, THIS: The form of capitalism that has been prevalent since the beginning of the modern era may cease to exist as we know it. sourced to an opinion piece on a newspaper website is not in any way encyclopedic. Under this principle, any crazy-assed statement making the web under the banner of Fox News would be "in." It's just the idle speculation of one dude, and an obscure one, writing commentary to make his deadline. Carrite (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an essay. Far too broad and POV to be an article. OSborn arfcontribs. 18:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inherently contrary to core policy; an improper WP:POVFORK. Warden (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails NPOV and would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic.--EdwardZhao (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.