Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generative Economy

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 redirect‎ to Democracy Collaborative as an AtD. Consensus below not to retain, but no objection to a redirect from those !voting delete. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generative Economy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is nothing to indicate that this is a notable concept. Thenightaway (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I can find several hits on the subject in academic literature: [1], [2], [3]. However, there aren't a lot that are not closely connected to Marjorie Kelly, who coined the term, and most of those are not from the field of economics but from other disciplines. It thus seems like a bit of a buzzword that has some attention in social justice/postcolonial circles but has not caught on in economics. That's a bit of a red flag to me. But there is secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is no policy basis to delete this article. The bias in policy toward keeping tragically weak articles like this one is rooted on the idea that someone, somewhere will care enough to improve it — an apparently vain hope in this case. It's been flagged as non-notable for eight years and it's still naught more than a stub. I agree with WeirdNAnnoyed that there is some secondary sourcing, but there just doesn't appear to be anything encyclopaedic to say about the subject. Until policy evolves to deal with perma-stubs, keeping is the only option that meets Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete Only one project is on the talk page - the climate change project - I have been active in this project for a few years now and I have never heard of 'generative economy'. I cannot see this being useful re climate change so I am removing our project. If another project wants to keep it I suggest they should add themselves on the talk page. @Sadads: - you may disagree? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While WeirdNAnnoyed and Last1n suggest the sources establish notability, I am more inclined to view this term as a WP:DICDEF or colloquialism and cannot find sources establishing notability.

Linked on this AfD page, source 2 I cannot view, but 1 is not significant coverage. And source 3 defines a generative economy quite differently to what the Wikipedia article currently writes, as A generative economy results when one actor’s production leads to the creation of new innovations that were not necessarily intended by the original inventor. Although just an interview, Kelly is not even mentioned at all, leading me to believe the interviewee Youngjin Yoo believes they are actually coining the term themselves. For the term itself to be notable, there needs to be more than just a definition of the term - and all I can find are either definitions from primary sources, or definitions quoted verbatim from Kelly.

On the article, 1 is primary, 2 and 4 are not reliable even if it did previously have mention of the term, 3 which I found at a 2016 archive ([4]) is also primary, and 5 and 6 do not use the term at all.

I had a skim through a handful of google scholar downloads and I could similarly only find unrelated uses of the term as a colloquialism or definitions exactly as Kelly has defined - and neither kind of source can contribute to meeting WP:GNG. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just remembered the relevant policy for this kind of thing: WP:NEO. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Democracy Collaborative: this charity is run by Marjorie Kelly who also coined the term, and promotes the concept of a generative economy. The page Marjorie Kelly is already a redir to the same target. Owen× ☎ 14:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Democracy Collaborative is a reasonable solution --Artene50 (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as pointed out in the first vote, it is a WP:NEOLOGISM that is only part of one researcher's personal brand and hasn't caught on. As such, all other sources with the keyword "generative economy" shown here fail the use-mention distinction, a compononent of WP:NEO. As worded:

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2023 (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.