311:
The concept being described is not nonsense. It makes perfect sense, and the theory may be correct. By the way, I don't think this article exists to promote a corporation or a book. The citations given are from the 1700s, so I don't think there's any conflict of interest or vanity/spam. If people
297:- I understand fully what the article is describing and the context in which it exists. (So speedy declined). The problem is notability. Has the term 'Gibsonian economics' achieved uptake within the literature? -
60:, but the latter is wholly unverifiable and hence, this is very likely someone's way of trying to promote either their own original research, or a take on Hume and Smith under another name. Moreover, this AfD is
210:
Recreated after speedy deletion as blatant advertising (of someone's original research). Whatever the user who started this article is trying to sell, I can't find anything meaningful on
137:
104:
99:
108:
48:. As the admin who first speedy deleted this article after it was tagged by another editor, I'm closing this AfD because the text blatantly
91:
279:
163:
17:
346:
384:
36:
363:
321:
306:
289:
261:
244:
227:
202:
168:
144:
Not notable. Searching google produces only this article. Article is confusing at best, not notable at least.
73:
257:
383:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
344:"Gibsonian" theory? Whose theory? Who is Gibson? Who has written about this theory? A Google string search for
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
95:
317:
302:
284:
159:
87:
79:
61:
269:
as per all of the above, and the fact that I had NO idea what the article was about after reading it
253:
359:
223:
69:
182:
313:
298:
240:
274:
195:
145:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
178:
354:
drawn together with a few citations which have nothing to do with "Gibsonian
Economics."
351:
215:
49:
355:
337:
312:
doubt that the article is on a legitimate topic, we could ask an expert to weigh in. -
219:
65:
53:
236:
125:
377:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
132:
121:
117:
113:
350:brings back one hit, this article. At most this is
46:speedily deleted, CSD G11, could also be G3, hoax
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
387:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
214:and the sources given look very much like
336:Yes, I understand the concept of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
252:My brain hurts after reading that.
24:
1:
364:11:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
322:10:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
307:10:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
290:06:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
262:03:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
245:02:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
228:02:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
203:01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
169:01:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
74:11:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
64:towards a deletion anyway.
404:
181:. A non-notable company.
380:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
56:into something called
347:Gibsonian Economics
212:Gibsonian Economics
88:Gibsonian Economics
80:Gibsonian Economics
58:Gibsonian Economics
235:Patent nonsense.
44:The result was
352:original research
201:
167:
154:
150:
395:
382:
287:
282:
277:
198:
193:
191:
188:
185:
157:
155:
152:
148:
135:
129:
111:
34:
403:
402:
398:
397:
396:
394:
393:
392:
391:
385:deletion review
378:
285:
280:
275:
254:ChildofMidnight
196:
189:
186:
183:
146:
131:
102:
86:
83:
52:notions of the
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
401:
399:
390:
389:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
338:Invisible hand
327:
326:
325:
324:
314:Richard Cavell
299:Richard Cavell
292:
264:
247:
230:
205:
142:
141:
82:
77:
54:Invisible hand
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
400:
388:
386:
381:
375:
374:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:
343:
339:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
323:
319:
315:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
291:
288:
283:
278:
272:
268:
267:Strong Delete
265:
263:
259:
255:
251:
248:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
229:
225:
221:
217:
216:cite spanning
213:
209:
206:
204:
199:
192:
180:
176:
173:
172:
171:
170:
165:
161:
156:
139:
134:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
81:
78:
76:
75:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
379:
376:
345:
341:
294:
270:
266:
249:
232:
211:
207:
174:
143:
57:
45:
43:
31:
28:
62:snowballing
356:Gwen Gale
220:Gwen Gale
66:Gwen Gale
286:andahalf
237:Fletcher
138:View log
179:WP:CORP
105:protect
100:history
295:Delete
250:Delete
233:Delete
208:Delete
177:: per
175:Delete
133:delete
109:delete
340:but,
271:twice
184:Schuy
149:ENNIS
136:) – (
126:views
118:watch
114:links
50:spans
16:<
360:talk
342:what
318:talk
303:talk
258:talk
241:talk
224:talk
197:talk
153:ROWN
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
70:talk
276:Pip
162:) (
362:)
320:)
305:)
260:)
243:)
226:)
218:.
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
72:)
358:(
316:(
301:(
281:2
273:~
256:(
239:(
222:(
200:)
194:(
190:1
187:m
166:)
164:C
160:T
158:(
151:B
147:D
140:)
130:(
128:)
90:(
68:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.