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 in light of recent improvements to the article. Additional consensus is that a possible renaming of the article will be discussed elsewhere. SouthernNights (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of choice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is entirely unsourced. The subject is not demonstrated to be a notable term and is not clearly defined in a way that differentiates it from ordinary English usage. The article has not been improved in all the time of its existence. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - There has been much improvement in the article since the AfD was opened. I now recommend keeping the article if its name is changed to "Freedom of choice (economics)" to avoid getting into the many other subjects from Religion to Roe v. Wade to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder that might relate to the title as now stated. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick search offers numerous relevant, high quality and reliable sources that firmly establish the notability of this concept. Do you disagree? Speaking of relevant and notable...I'm still waiting for your reply... Talk:Government_waste#Removal_of_reliably_sourced_content --Xerographica (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Meh. A quick search offers numerous sources for the term, which are almost certainly not about the concept. See Freedom of choice (disambiguation) for other terms about which a "source" could be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? So there are numerous sources that discuss the term itself...which differs from the concept? Is the article Freedom of choice about the concept or the term? Are you trying to argue that Friedman's book...Free to Choose...is about the term...rather than the concept? Also, are you aware that Wikipedia is not a dictionary? --Xerographica (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say is that there are numerous sources which discuss the term with numerous distinct meanings, including the three listed then listed in the article. The present lead, however, seems a plausible approach. I'm not convinced that it can be expanded past a dictionary definition plus OR plus "passages", but I've changed my !vote, to Meh. That being said, I'm not sure the article can be expanded beyond a stub. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does MEH stand for? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Glossary#M has a "Meh" listed, but I'm not clear if or how it applies here. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Articles should be deleted based on WP:POTENTIAL, so arguing that the article "is entirely unsourced" configures WP:ASZ. Since many independent reliable sources can be found with a quick search about this subject, and even an encyclopedic entry, it therefore meets WP:GNG requirements. Note also that freedom of choice is different from choice and free will. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That assumes that there is anything here which should be in the WP:POTENTIAL article. Even if I were convinced that there was a potential article, there is nothing here which should be there. As it stands, the three sentences presently in the artcle refer to three different concepts, although the freedom to dispose of (sell) property and the freedom to buy (goods) are closely related. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  And the caveat that the goods or work must be legal (almost) voids the entire concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Those problems are now fixed, thanks to you, Hugo. There are a few bytes in common between the status of the article when I made my previous comment yesterday and the status today. There would have been no harm in deleting the article as it was before your edits, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If you've ever taken a microeconomics course, this vote is a no-brainer. ResMar 03:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep [See below] – User:Hugo Spinelli has provided some quite useful references. The OP's premise is no longer valid. Thank you, Hugo. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Res. This is micro 101.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer 
• Keep sufficiently notable concept.--Staberinde (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but beef it up with more notable sources. CarolMooreDC 17:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if not expanded, the content volume (I don't mean word count, I mean "interesting"/ "useful" bits of information) seems to me insufficient to justify a separate article. As a topic, I believe it has potential but needs to be developed. Alternatively, it might be included in an existing article.   SteveT (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC) --> struck 04:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "As a topic, I believe it has potential but needs to be developed", please read WP:POTENTIAL. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I read article WP:Potential. If what you were thinking is that it would change my mind with respect to my "vote" to delete, it did not. However, subsequent edits have -- I think its potential is now sufficiently developed to change my vote to "Keep." SteveT (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly what WP:POTENTIAL means. I don't understand what made you change your mind, then. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe this article is being improved and may be worth effort. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Freedom of choice (economics)" per recommendation of OP. The "(economics)" in the title is vital to distinguishing the article from undefined common usage of the term. Moreover, the rename will preserve the consensus to keep. (ATTN: Administrator – when closing this discussion can you accomplish the rename?) – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The topic of freedom of choice in general has WP:POTENTIAL to be developed further independently of its relevance in economics. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – We've gotta follow the policy of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. If we leave "freedom of choice" bare, we open it up to all kinds of tangents. (For more comments, please see Talk:Freedom_of_choice#Re-Title_article.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Be more specific. What kind of tangents do you see in the article? The name itself follows all WP:NAMINGCRITERIA recommendations. If the content does not follow some policy, it can be improved. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC) I will continue that discussion on the talk page. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo, I agree with Srich on this. Most of what you've added in your recent edits is tangential. There could be separate articles on abortion rights, euthanasia, etc but they are entirely different topics than the economic implications and importance of freedom of choice, as articulated for example by Friedman. The article should not be like a dictionary entry that presents a variety of meanings for the words "Freedom of choice>" The article must be focused on the exposition of a single meaning or theory denoted by the term. We can write additional articles about the other meanings and theories. SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment moved to Talk:Freedom_of_choice#Re-Title_article --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:SPECIFICO, User:Arthur Rubin, User:Srich32977 and User:Turetzsr, given my remarks above and the current state of the article, do you still vote for deleting or renaming the article? Note that a main article, like Choice (economics), for the economic usage of the term might be created without deleting or renaming Freedom of choice. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the article talk page: I don't have any further thoughts on this until I understand where the article is headed or where it is likely to end up. I'm inclined to wait and see what it looks like after you've finished following the ideas you have in mind for it. Meanwhile, if you are able to do so in a sentence or two, could you state why you think there needs to be an article on Freedom of Choice that goes beyond what is conveyed by its meaning in ordinary language and is not covered by other more specific articles such as Free Will, Legal Rights, etc? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't predict how the article will end up in the future. My edits were just an effort to prove WP:POTENTIAL. I'm disappointed that I haven't convinced you yet. I thought including some references would prove that the topic is notable and worthy of an entry on WP. Maybe it isn't of your interest, but I'm sure a lot of people will find it helpful and maybe with future collaboration of some experts it will become a good article. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think I may not have been clear. I changed my vote long ago from delete to rename. I still don't see why there would be an article on an English phrase, but if it goes in a certain direction it can be renamed. I had thought it was going in the direction of economic significance of choice, what with Milton Friedman and all. If it goes in another direction, it will need to be renamed to reflect that. I don't see a catch-all for the English phrase being an article topic, but that can be sorted out after there is a better-defined article to evaluate. There's no reason to shut-down its evolution. It can be renamed or deleted at a later date. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I still don't see why there would be an article on an English phrase" By the same reason there are articles for Freedom of assembly, Freedom of association, I don't have any further thoughts on this until I understand where the article is headed or where it is likely to end up. I'm inclined to wait and see what it looks like after you've finished following the ideas you have in mind for it. Meanwhile, if you are able to do so in a sentence or two, could you state why you think there needs to be an article on Freedom of Choice that goes beyond what is conveyed by its meaning in ordinary language and is not covered by other more specific articles such as Free Will, Legal Rights, etc? Thanks., Freedom of information, Freedom of movement, Freedom of the press, Freedom of religion, Freedom of speech and Freedom of thought. What is so different about Freedom of choice that it does not deserve being an article topic? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that terms such as "Freedom of assembly" have a specific legal or cultural context and meaning. That one is in the US Constitution. Similarly, "Freedom of information" refers to a specific legal issue in many nations. "Freedom of choice" is not like that. The verb "to choose" is transitive. The object must be stated. When the object is not stated, as in "Freedom of choice" it is intrinsically ambiguous. If the meaning is not made clear and specific, the article will read more like a dictionary recitation of meanings. Looking at the list of current articles with "Freedom" in their titles, I expect some, among them for example Freedom of education to be deleted in the future. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Freedom of choice, not "Freedom to choose". Please read the first reference of the article, it addresses your concerns. It's a whole article dedicated to discuss the definition of "freedom of choice", including what "choice" means in this context. "Looking at the list of current articles with "Freedom" in their titles, I expect some, among them for example Freedom of education to be deleted in the future" you are being WP:OVERZEALOUS, don't start a deletionism war on good articles. It will not help improving WP. Abuse of unnecessary deletion requests are damaging to the reputation of the article for at least a week, discourages editors to continue contributing and might configure WP:BURO. Help improve the articles instead. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the consensus is to keep. Once this AfD is closed, let's consider alternatives. The basic difficulty is what follows or precedes "choice". Its' gotta have a "freedom to choose ..." or "freedom of choice in ...". Consider, why is Freedom a DAB page, and why don't we have a Freedom of or Freedom to page? Because we can't nail down "freedom of ..." or "freedom to ..." without the object, as in "freedom of religion, the press, speech, etc." Each of these freedoms necessarily involves choice. Consider, isn't freedom of religion the same as choice of religion, and freedom of thought is basically choice of thought? When we exercise some freedom or some choice, we are making a decision to do or not do such & such. Those infinite number of choices keept the bare Freedom of choice article from a discrete topic. Sure, it has POTENTIAL, only it has too much potential. That's why, when the AfD is closed, we gotta narrow the article subject down IAW NAMINGCRITERIA. (Also, SPECIFICO is helping to improve -- he's just pushing on the other side of the WP:POLE. – S. Rich (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC) PS: I am not suggesting that either of you is a POV pusher. That is considered to be an uncivil comment and I don't want my referral to the essay to be see as such! – S. Rich (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the first reference of the article, it addresses many of your concerns. As for Freedom being a DAB page, it is because, used in a broad sense, it is the same as Liberty, but notice that Liberty isn't a DAB. You could say "liberty of what?", "liberty to what?" but, as far as I know, there is no WP policy being violated here. And notice also that Liberty is rated as Top-importance on two WP projects. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot infer a decision about "Freedom of choice" by discussing "Liberty." That is argumentum ad whatever. -- probably this one SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What?? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assume that the article will be kept. The best place discuss topic is on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that renaming it to Freedom of choice (economics) will have the same effect as deleting it. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps so. But that decision can be made during a proposal to rename. It will help all concerned editors if we can close this discussion with a simple "Keep" and then move on. Your concerns can be fully addressed at that point. In the meantime, continue to work on the existing article. – S. Rich (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, flagging it to be renamed is too damaging to the article's reputation for the issue to be addressed later. Do you mind pointing out under what WP's policy you think the contents not concerning economics should be deleted? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, the article is not "flagged" for anything other than the current proposed deletion. And this discussion will "unflag" it as soon as it is closed. Subsequently a new discussion may arise about renaming the article with an eye on economics. If that occurs, a new article about "freedom of choice", that addresses the larger, non-economics, philosophical aspects, can be developed. In the alternative, a new article about Freedom of choice (economics) can be developed. (Would you object to having both articles?) More importantly, for your contributions to WP, please consider that we work by WP:CONSENSUS. If there is community consensus on an issue, we live with the consensus and seek to improve the articles. "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia,..." And with that in mind, there is no policy to point out to you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed that. I said that the article Choice (economics) should be created, that some of the content of Choice#Choice and evaluability in economics should be moved to it and that that section and Freedom of choice#In Economics should have Choice (economics) as their main article. No one responded to that suggestion. I don't have plans to do that myself, because I would have to begin a new research to find reliable sources to notability issues, it would start another deletionism war, another week of debating... it would take too much time and effort. But besides all of that, Freedom of choice should not be renamed, especially with you having "no policy to point out to". --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy to point to – WP:CONSENSUS. With that policy in mind, how about this? We all stop this mulberry bush AfD discussion. The AfD will close with a keep. FOC gets expanded upon. A new article, FOC (economics) gets started (because others have said above it is microeconomics 101). Economics aspects of FOC and Choice get stripped out/pared down and placed in the FOC (economics) article leaving brief synopses and "See main" hatnotes in both FOC & Choice. (Gad, Choice certainly needs improvement! Consider this paragraph from the article: "Personal factors determine food choice. They are... [1-14].") This way FOC stays within the purview of Liberty, Choice stays within metaphysics & decision theory, and FOC (economics)/Choice (economics) stays within the purview of economics. – S. Rich (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think we have reached consensus as to not delete the article. Also, the users that suggested that the article should be renamed seem to be willing to discuss this issue outside this AfD discussion. With that in mind, I think this discussion can be closed with keep as its result. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I know WP:BURO, but what's the harm of letting the AfD stay open the full 7 days? I agree that a consensus to deleted will not develop, but violating this arbitrary rule leads to drama. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, assume good faith. I didn't know that it should be kept by 7 days. Another AfD was up for more than that, so I thought it was a flexible or arbitrary decision. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. No, 7 days is the minimum except in case of WP:SNOW or speedy deletions. (I believe the justification is that some users only sign on once a week.) I recall a cotraversial AfD which was closed after 6 days 14 hours, and DRV (Deletion Review) / ANI discussion took another 9 days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2013 (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.