Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic progress

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. W.marsh 23:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economic progress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article has started as an original research/POV essay [1], and it still isn't anything else. I don't think it can be salvaged, but I am open to suggestions. Until/unless that happens, delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY I have a suggestion. If an article is going to talk about economic progress, then instead of writing about the specific CAUSES of economic progress, talk about HOW economic progress occurs in the first place.

The best way of doing this is to first define what economic progress is. I think the reason why the article is so POV contaminated is because nowhere is there any definition for economic progress. It's surprising that nobody picked this up yet. Once we do that, THEN people can be free to discuss and improve the entry.

For if we START the entry with explaining how economic progress is spread, why some countries seem not to have it, etc, I think we are just going to go off on tangents.

I can make some suggestions as to what exactly economic progress is and how it should be defined, and I can do it without having to resort to dogma. I can keep it comletely "neutral". If you want I can define it for you.

This article is useless and SHOULD be deleted. But economic progress itself should stay, just changed. - Private Freedom 03:00, 7 November 2007

• delete As nom. And I don't think the page can be salvaged.Alberon 09:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unsalvageable essay. The phrase colloquially means a number of different things, none of which seem to be addressed by this article, instead vaguely talking about Weber and Rand. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 7 November 2007 (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.