Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superinflation cycle

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superinflation cycle

Much as I'm loath to AFD anything economics-related, this theory is not encyclopedic. The only sources for it seem to be a couple of websites and it's basically Bigfoot economics. Please delete. The Land 09:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no apparent acceptance beyond its initial publication. Gazpacho 09:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what do you count the Wally Bently article as if not "acceptance"? He's quoting "Cycles" magazine, which may be the original publication, or may be referring to something by Prechter. Sure, that doesn't make it widespread acceptance, but it is acceptance. TimNelson 11:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A mention in an editorial on a site which is intended to promote investment in gold is hardly a reference of note. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 20:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete: From my point of view, it was one of the things I would have wanted to find when looking up Economic Waves (and it does have a disclaimer to note potential problems). Disclaimer; I wrote the Wikipedia article TimNelson 11:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only 7 links on this topic from google. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 20:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Susan. Will 00:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as unreferenced original research. Stifle 23:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to me (the Wikipedia article creator) I got all the information there from the two references at the bottom of the page. Admittedly, I summarised it and put it into tabular format, but I wouldn't normally consider that "research". If you're referring to the articles I got the information from, then I think they're getting it from Prechter (although I haven't seen anything of his online on the subject), for whom I would consider this 'original research'. TimNelson 02:42, 19 January 2006 (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.