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 keep‎. While I'm sympathetic to the nominator's opinion about the state of this article, I see a consensus to Keep it. Here's hoping that it can get some attention from interested editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progressive_utilization_theory[edit]

Progressive_utilization_theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This page is a extremely obscure set of economic theories which isn't terribly useful to have as a separate article. The article should be deleted or merged and redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's page. The issue with the earlier review is that it is inconclusive due to the idea that this theory was being used or implemented, however this is not the case. It's a obscure theory from over 50 years ago with and hasn't been used since. Perhaps, at most it's a social movement started by Sarkar, all the more reason to have it be on his page. Similar to social credit, but as far as I can tell unlike social credit no government aligned with this movement has been in power which brings into question it's notability. This is a theory that isn't used either in economics or in any polity. This article isn't notable enough to have its own page and needs to be reviewed.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, possible WP:CSK#3. Meets GNG with the independent references in article, even if we don't consider Sarkar independent. Friedman and Crovetto in particular have several pages of SIGCOV each. These references are from within the past 15 years, and even that hadn't been the case, WP:NOTTEMPORARY. A quick search of Google Scholar finds more. —siroχo 05:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  FWIW, the bar for AfD submission is pretty low, the nomination raises notability issues, I wouldn't consider this a no rationale CSK. Quality of reasoning is different from absence of reason. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Quality of reasoning can fall under CSK criterion 3. Absence is CSK 1, and you are correct that would not apply. There is indeed effectively no bar for AfD submissions. —siroχo 23:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Most of the google results are either pages selling Sarkar's books, foundations based on Sarkar's work, or articles based on this page. So not many independent sources. I don't see why this needs to be separate from Sarkar's page. The issue is that a reasonable edit of this page would make it a stub. Imitationsasquatch (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep I'm sympathetic to where the nomination is coming from given the contents of the article in its present state: far too reliant on sources lacking in independence of the subject. That said, AfD is not clean up. However, concur with Siroxo, there is sourcing that indicates the theory itself is notable and given the size of the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar article, this is an acceptable fork. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The Sarkar article isn't terribly long and the PUT page could be condensed into a section. Imitationsasquatch (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep -- I don't see a policy-based reason to delete. The article needs cleanup, but that falls under WP:DINC as Goldsztajn mentions. The article has enough sources that appear to be independent of the subject to meet GNG. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.