Useful work growth theory

Please be advised that the name of the article was changed per editorial recommendation to Ayres-Warr model.

Useful work growth theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: "Ayres Warr model"news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Short on notability; difficult to find any substantial mention of it, other than mirrors of this article, and a person who wrote the "theory". This leads us to a second problem - one of WP:FRINGE; due to scarce mainstream coverage, the article is another magnet for synthesis/OR. bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion as a form of censorship, evidence of which is that it is being called a "fringe" theory, despite logic of the author's arguments. The authors of the theory were sponsored by institutions with outstanding credentials: INSEAD and Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and was published in the yearbook of the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook (2004), the citation to which was removed probably because the article was no longer available on line. One of the papers was published [The Oil Drum] and has been commented on numerous times since, which I consider peer review. Phmoreno (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The reason the article is nominated for deletion, is that in all appearance the topic does not meet our notability requirement that it has been the subject of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Also, apparently, the idea is not broadly supported by economic scholars, which is the very definition of fringe theory. Maybe these appearances are wrong, and there are reliable sources (not authored by Messrs. Ayres and Warr) – whether they be textbooks, scholarly articles, journal reviews, or anything else – that pay significant attention to this theory that we have somehow overlooked. In that case, all you have to do is point out these sources, and I'll recommend that the article be kept.  --Lambiam 00:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The theory is not fringe just for being not mainstream. And concerning energy and growth there are quite a bit of articles ( which, btw can be easily revealed by google search using authors names, there are hundreds of links including academic lectures by other researches ) in addition the theory is considered by other authors examples:

inside these papers there are quite a bit of references to energy and growth economic studies. So summary - there are mentions of the theory by other authors ( even though they are tightly related - but from different universities ), the general approach is considered adequate by related studies by other authors ( all from academia, and not freaks ). So I would consider an attack on article to be unfounded. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The article did have some readership. If you talk to people in the energy or energy economics circles they are far more likely to have heard of it than the general public. But I don't understand how this could be suitable for IIASA, INSEAD, The Oil Drum and the International Energy Agency but not for Wikipedia? Are you saying that these institutions and organizations are not independent and reliable? Phmoreno (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Readership is irrelevant. The relevant policy is WP:Notability. There is no indication that this they is "suitable" (whatever that means) for IIASA, INSEAD, or IEA. That the authors of the theory has worked for these are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not based on the credentials of authors, but on verifiability and notability amongst reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Core content policies. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The authors did not work for the International Energy Agency, and even if they did that does not make disqualify them. As for IIASA, it is an international research organization, so this is no different than a university press publishing one of their professor's papers. Now, how about us discussing your reputation on Wikipedia? Seems like you've been in some edit wars. Actually getting tired of spending thousands of dollars on books and no telling how many hours reading and writing on Wikipedia and then getting involved difficult and biased individuals.Phmoreno (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Personal attacks gets you nowhere, and are against Wikipedia policies. Consider this your first warning.
My reputation is both good and irrelevant. I am neither difficult nor biased. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can also not find any mentions of this theory, under any name, in media or scholarly work outside of the authors. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The redirect with the authors' names was to improve recognition. This was formerly known as the Ayres-Warr model, which you are more likely to find in a search. I chose the name Useful Work Growth Theory because that is the way the authors described it in their latest book The Economic Growth Engine and is a more descriptive title.Phmoreno (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
see my response earlier. if someone fails to find say ( just for example ) ( quite a dated paper ),Andre_.pdf that etc says nothing about theory, but about a) on intentions to bury an article, b) inability to check internet sources, because these links are five minutes of search in google 13:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)SergeyKurdakov (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC) use in official sources as reliable ground for policy analysis SergeyKurdakov (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I added links to several articles discussing the Ayres-Warr model under: See also.Phmoreno (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
None of those links appear to be WP:reliable sources, and are hence not relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
ASPO commenting on the International Monetary Fund's 2011 World Economic Outlook:
"This is a very substantial break from the conventional Solow-Swan model (for which Solow won the Nobel Prize in 1987). This thinking reflects that described by Ayres & Warr (referenced in this IMF report) in their recently published book ‘The Economic Growth Engine‘ (2009)."
[1]Phmoreno (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The text you quote come from a blog. The original IMF paper that is referenced does not contain that text. The April IMF report does mention Ayres and Warr, but not that book, nor useful work growth or the Ayres and Warr model. The source of the statement is hence a blog, and self-published sources including blogs are not reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Saying that the source of this statement is a "blog" is misleading. This so called "blog" is not self published but is the website of the Ireland chapter of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil ASPO Ireland whose founders are prominent petroleum geologists and engineers. This scientific discussion "blog" is a form of peer review and establishes notability, which is precisely what we are trying to establish. By the Ireland chapter posting the article they are showing that the Ayres-Warr model is gaining acceptance by the international financial community. OpenFuture, I appreciate your vote to keep, but others reading this need to know the correct story.Phmoreno (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
No, blogs are not a form of peer-review. And I can't find anything that makes me think that ASPO is a well regarded organisation whose publications are reliable sources in the first place. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You know that the really good part of this story is? I read the ASPO founders original paper The End of Cheap Oil in Scientific American, in March 1998. At that time oil was selling for $10 per barrel, so I put all my money in oil stocks. In 2007 my wife and I were able to retire off the investments, giving me time to do Wikipedia. Now you know why I think ASPO is a reliable source. Best regards.Phmoreno (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, now I know. The question remains if it is a reliable source by Wikipedias standards. I find it doubtful. The conclusion doesn't change with one doubtful source: You haven't showed that Useful work growth theory has notability enough to warrant the existence of the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Week Keep Google scholar search for Ayres-Warr model turns up some hits. Appears to be discussed, but not yet much referred to in the published literature. Rename to Ayres-Warr model and delete current name as implausible redirect. The term "useful work growth theory" not used in the literature. (See google scholar search) LK (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Most of those hits are sources written by Ayres and Warr themselves though. Maybe it still counts if it's published? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete- I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Google scholar results indicate that the authors published with not much comment, but merely publishing does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Summary of the case for keeping this article (now re titled Ayres-Warr model): The name change to ‘’’Ayres-Warr model’’’ significantly improved search results It is about an extension of well known neoclassical economics. The authors’ show their model is a better fit then previous models. The model was posted on and was the subject of later articles. The authors have a long list of publications. Some of these can be seen at Robert Ayres (scientist) Robert Ayres served on the faculty of International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis , an international research organization and INSEAD, an international business college The model was published in:

  • International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook (2004)
  • A NATO publication

Ayres-Warr was cited by the International Monetary Fund's 2011 World Economic Outlook

I believe Wikipedia's policy about "fringe theories" is designed to keep out things like space alien, conspiracies, paranormal, etc. and not the work of reputable scientist using accepted methods to reach logical conclusions. Also, the lack of "significant" coverage in quantity is more than compensated for by the quality of independent sources. Phmoreno (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I searched for Ayres-Warr model from the start, and my opinion above stands: There are no reliable sources to support the notability of this topic. It is not up to you to decide if the research is done "using accepted methods to reach logical conclusions" or not. This is done by the scientific community and it's judged the existence of peer review, quotations or other NOT/RS criteria.
The model is NOT quoted in World Energy Outlook (2004). The authors are, but not the model. You claim it's also referenced in a NATO publication but you don't say which one, or give any relevant quotes. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The NATO publication was behind a paywall; only the first page was shown. You have already voted on this and I know you counter POV on the subject from your discussions anyone interested can see in Talk: Technological unemployment. You even tried to discredit the ASPO founders, who had an article published in Scientific American. Perhaps someone else will question why, if this article is so non-notable, you persist in commenting on it rather than just voting and moving on. As for Technological unemployment, I wish you would spend as much time putting your case there into a logical economic argument (per administrator's comment) as you do trying to discredit my sources. Phmoreno (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
If you don't want me to counter your arguments, stop making bad arguments. If you don't want me to discredit your sources, stop using unreliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete it; conspiracy theories about censorship are not a substitute for reliable sources. It's particularly unhelpful to suggest that the topic is covered by a source which doesn't actually cover it. For instance, some of Ayres & Warr's results (not the model itself) are named in footnote 3 on page 322 of a WEO report 8 years ago, but somehow this has been hyped up into the model being "published in the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook" and used as a claim to notability. bobrayner (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
As I recall the paper was posted along with the World Energy Outlook on the IEA website in conjunction with WEO 2004,; however, that was a few years ago and it no longer appears. I will correct the citation.Phmoreno (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I tried removing that ref two weeks ago, but you re-added it and hyped it up again, both on the article and on this AfD page - whilst simultaneously hyping up the IMF report. In reality, some of Ayres & Warr's results - not the model itself - are cited in footnote 31 of an 180 page IMF report. How can we trust any of your cites for either neutrality or notability? Editing like that is not the path to good content, and the most fleeting mention in a long document about something else does not establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the NATO publication: [1] SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security, 2008, 1-23, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8494-2_1Phmoreno (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How does a paper by Ayres demonstrate the notability of Ayres' theory? Aren't we supposed to have independent sources? bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The same way a paper published in Nature or Scientific American or other journal establishes notability. It's the opinion of the editors that it is worthy of publication. And, are saying NATO is not independent? Phmoreno (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, since nobody actually read that paper, we don't know what it says, so we don't know if it mentions the theory, so we can't use it to show notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

four different researches discussing the subject:

SergeyKurdakov (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

opinion - the subject is notable ( in either academia and in policy circles ) the article should be kept SergeyKurdakov (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Stern does not mention "Useful work growth" nor any "Ayes-Warr model". It does mention Ayes and Warr, and something that is called the "REXS growth model". Is that a third name, or another model by the same authors? Well, until we have a reliable source that it's the same model, we need to assume it is not. (And indeed, it seems this is a model from 2006, different from a model they made in 2005. Is the 2005 model the "Ayres-Warr model"? Why is that then notable, but not their improved model from 2006?
Sorrel does mention Ayres and Warr as having made alternative theories, but only as one group amongst many. He does not mention either an "Useful work growth model" nor any "Ayes-Warr model".
Ruzzenenti/Basosi also does not mention any of the models, and in fact only mention Ayres and Warr in the completely uncontroversial statement "The rising issue of energy conservation has prompted us to consider energy efficiency as more than merely a characteristic of economic growth, but also as a cause." Of course it is a cause of economic growth, all increased efficiency is. The Ayres-Warr claim according to the current article is that it in fact is the major or even only cause.
Lindenberger/Kümmel does not mention any of the models. They claim that what Ayres and Warr do is to replace primary energy by “useful work” in the LinEx production function. They therefore also do not support the claim that the Ayres-Warr model is about replacing general production efficiency with only energy efficiency as a factor for growth.
None of these four papers support a notability claim for this model, and seem to disagree on what the model *is*.
--OpenFuture (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Stern does not mention "Useful work growth" nor any "Ayes-Warr model". It does mention Ayes and Warr let me explain you how it relates. When authors relate to Ayres and Warr they give an year? Correct? This way a reference is made to actual content in academic literature. Now about link. If you follow them - then you would see that Ayres and Warr describe their model in details. So why you do not see mention - it just because you do not get how a cite in scientific work is done, but the cited works have a complete description of Ayres Warr model. The same way Lindenberger/Kümmel mention the mentioned model under name Ayres and reference to published works. There are quite a bit of articles of these authors - so you might check in details, how they relate their work with Ayers Warr model.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
And now let me explain to you how it relates: WP:Notability. That's how it relates. Does these papers show notability of the "Ayres-Warr model"? No, because to show that, they need to mention it. That they reference the work of Ayres and Warr does not show the notability of the topic "Ayres-Warr model", even if the referenced work contains a model of some sort --OpenFuture (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The SEAI paper mention Ayres and Warr and quote them on a completely different topic. It seems to me both SergeyKurdakov and Phmoreno need to understand that quoting Ayres or Warr on one topic is not providing notability for what they say on another topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Same goes here SEAI paper mentions Evidence of causality between the quantity and quality of energy consumption and economic growth. following work which when you open you can see it is about "The aim of this paper is to re-examine the energy-GDP relationship for the US for the period of 1946-2000 by redefining energy in terms of exergy ( the amount of energy available for useful work )" - so this whole paper is devoted to one aspect of mentioned problem, and referring to it - means to review the whole concept of the article, accept that it is suitable for citing and make a cite. But you might notice - there are not only these 5 links which provide relevant academic links to articles and works of Ayres Warr but several dozens of them. Which exactly cite those works, where Ayres and Warr describe and use their discussed here model. So the summary - if you fail to find exact word in scientific article with properly made citation to material which describes a concept - this is not a problem of a concept. But because it is obvious for anyone who works with scientific links - there is a problem, that a person who fails to understand a purpose of citation to delete page with description of widely accepted work.

SergeyKurdakov (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"need to understand that quoting Ayres or Warr on one topic is not providing notability for what they say on another topic" the problem for you here that almost all works of Ayres and Warr ( when they are writen together, separately they cover other topics, but the discussion is about Ayres Warr model ) are devoted to discussed concept of useful energy. It concerns all cited works in above provided links.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not a problem nor is it even remotely relevant for this discussion. This is about showing the notability of the topic "Ayres-Warr model". These articles do not mention any such model, and hence they do not help in establishing the notability of such a model and hence they do not show the notability of the topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me summarize my understanding of a question - I'm sorry, that I'm late to the party ( thought I read almost everything Ayres and Warr wrote for my own studies ( which are not of any interest - the point is here that I know content of their work ).

Who is Ayres - he is distinguished scholar with quite a lot of publications while Warr is less known he worked in insead as a researcher.

their useful work theory is a main achievement of them as scientists which they presented not only in books, but in many articles

So most of the works they produce - are about energy in a form of 'useful work' their books are just about formulation of the theory ( I have these books )

now there are dozens of references to their academic work in different contexts ( today gathered about two dozens articles and had to read them to verify), citing exactly the papers for 'useful work'.

Now - the essence of their work is called fringe theory on the base of complete ignorance of subject.

I think that those who claims such a thing, should first read works by these authors, then understand what exactly other authors refer when they mention Ayres and Warr.

I cannot see how ultimate ignorance and exercising it is a reason for a deletion? Is there such a reason in wikipedia rules? 23:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)SergeyKurdakov (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Plese read WP:Notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
of cause I read, published books by respected publisher automatically bring the work of out scope of the definition by this link. And link to book which is published by Edward Elgar Publishing is provided. The whole book is about this one concept a model by Ayres Warr of useful energy — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyKurdakov (talkcontribs) 09:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
A book that *also* does not mention any "Ayres-Warr model" or a "useful work growth theory". It *contains* a growth theory that centers on useful work, but it does not establish the notability of the article "Useful work grows theory". It also contains a model by the authors Ayres and Warr, but it does not establish the notability of any "Ayres-Warr model". You guys seem to have a very hard time understanding that difference.
What does this mean? It means that you can mention Ayres and Warr's theory about useful work on pages about Economic growth, where it unsurprisingly already has it's own section. But you can't have a page about "Useful work growth theory" or the "Ayres-Warr model", because it's not notable.
first to note "You guys seem to have a very hard time understanding that difference." is an insult as is 'need to understand' and using you words - it does not help you. Now on notability explains how this is a new growth theory distinct from others. Now there are articles on Mahalanobis equation, Solow growth model, etc ( there are quite a few growth models articles in wikipedia ). The model is cited in numerous papers and public materials ( blogs ). A reader would have an opportunity to know what this new model is about. Now we return from your current objection from those objections which were put initially. They were about citations to prove a theory is non self promotion? Now there are explanations it is not self promotion. And you accepted - there is such a theory, mentioned by others. And you make another objection - than no growth theory has a separate page. Of cause there are pages even for obscure Mahalanobis growth model. So now objections are not based on any rules - but your own preferences, which are constantly followed by insults. So if the article is deleted - I would just appeal. That is all for now.Look forward to meet you on appeal process.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources. The "Ayres-Warr model" is not cited in any papers. Several papers cite Aures and Warr. Some make references to models. None make any references to "The Ayres-Warr model". Claiming that the papers than make a reference to "The Ayres-Warr Model" is at best WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Your feeble attempts of insults aren't helping your case, by the way. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is not understanding that the outsiders do not consider that the academics and policy makers who cite such papers (for example, Ayres-Warr (2004) are expecting the reader to either already be familiar with the work or have it readily accessible. And they would certainly expect the reader to be well versed in the subject being discussed. So yes, it's very easy for someone who has read most of the literature to look at a paper, in this case showing a model, and quickly realize exactly how a cited model is or is not related to what the author is presenting. When I read through the papers I am already familiar with the various models and authors cited, though not necessarily the exact paper, but then I am not a specialist in this field. So it is a great shortcoming of Wikipedia that people who are not well versed in the subject matter come to question or pass judgment on what insiders instantly recognize as valid citations.Phmoreno (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If this model really is so well known that the authors of this paper would expect the readers to already know about the Ayres-Warr model and what it means, then the model would be mentioned in the paper under that (or another) name, with no further explanation. That would also show the models notability.
However, this is exactly what is *not* done. The Ayres-Warr model is not mentioned in the papers at all. Hence these papers do not show notability. Your argument that the fact that the papers doesn't mention the model somehow is proof that the model is notable is completely nonsensical. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"If this model really is so well known that the authors of this paper would expect the readers to already know about the Ayres-Warr model and what it means, then the model would be mentioned in the paper under that (or another) name, with no further explanation. That would also show the models notability." again - if entire article which is referenced is devoted to the model, then referring it means 'mentioning it' weather some lay person see it or not. Then if you need exact references to exergy ( synonym to useful work in works by Ayress Warr ) then you might find appropriate articles as well . Finally - I do not see a problem with notability if two academic books on subject are published and there are articles about content. According to you - Edward Elgar Publishing - publishes non notable works? but it is not what non notability means, as wikipedia rules states - it is self promotion and not publishing a work by respected publisher. So there is not reason to delete a notable article out of your personal inability to find references to model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyKurdakov (talkcontribs) 09:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
SergeyKurdakov: Let's not argue with him anymore. You and I both know his arguments are absurd. They show no understanding of academic citation, much less the work of Ayres-Warr. Obviously it is a wast of time to present any more information. Thank you for making excellent points and for the additional links. Lindenburger and Kummel (2011) I found particularly interesting.Phmoreno (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I think there are enough info to make a qualified decision that the article is notable. If an article is deleted I would appeal.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
An appeal would open up the opportunity to raise some questions about this inquiry. I think this needs to be called to the attention of a higher up administrator.Phmoreno (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"if entire article which is referenced is devoted to the model, then referring it means 'mentioning it' weather some lay person see it or not." - I repeat with emphasis: "Mention it under that name". Did this make it clearer? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"Let's not argue with him anymore." - Good. Listen instead. Try to understand the relevant Wikipedia policy about notability, and understand why it is there and how it is applied. That would be much more useful than repeatedly claiming that an article that does not mention the Ayres-Warr model can be used to show notability for the topic.
You claim that the whole article is about the "Ayres-Warr model". So why then does it not call it "The Ayres-Warr model"? When no paper talk about any "Ayres-Warr model" (which they don't) then this is not a common name for that model, and then the article can't be called it. If the model does not have a commonly used name (which seems to be the case) then it is per definition not notable. The model is not even mentioned as "a model by Ayres and warr" or similar. Instead all the papers above just reference their work, and mention different aspects of it. But that does not a notable model make. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the name Ayres-Warr model, this was used in a widely read article by: Ian Schindler CeReMath Université Toulouse 1 - Capitole Manufacture des Tabacs 21, Allée de Brienne 31000 Toulouse FRANCE Email:

I suggest you email him if you are not satisfied with the name.Phmoreno (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you know it's "Widely read"? That's just a PDF lying on a server as a university. (Why it it always at The University of Toulouse? Ah well.) It is apparently not published anywhere, and hence does not count as reliable source. Again, in this PDF, shows up. It seems these people are the only one talking about an "Ayres-Warr model". --OpenFuture (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also see LK's comments above by the Wiki Keep vote where he suggests the name change.Phmoreno (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Above OpenFuture said:

"Instead all the papers above just reference their work, and mention different aspects of it."

Because the papers referred to "address the subject [economic growth models] directly in detail" and are from "independent" and "reliable sources" he has essentially established notability.Phmoreno (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A paper can not establish notability for a topic which it does not mention. Papers that do not mention the "Ayres-Warr model" do not establish notability for it. You *claim* they refer to the "Ayres-Warr model" but since the papers themselves does not call it that, we only have your word for that they do, and you are not a reliable source. It is in other words WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 02:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The question how are growth models are called and named? Answer they are named by name of author and an additional word "model" examples: Solow model, Mahalanobis model, Ramsey growth model, Harrod-Domar model - so it is a practice among growth models to be called this way. But the question of name is quite a distinct question from a question of notability. When an article is wrongly named - it is renamed not deleted. So first - I would ask - let finish solution on notability, remove notability warning ( and danger of removal of notable article ) and then start discussing names if it is found to be appropriate. Please do not move irrelevant themes on names to the core of discussing on ( already ) established facts on notability. The question on notability must be closed now. Then if a common naming of growth models is found inappropriate for some reason ( though I doubt it ) - then a new name for the article should be selected.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In several of these papers that you references above there are many models who are named in other ways than after their authors, so this statement is simply incorrect. Models, as everything else, are named by what people call them when they refer to them. If people do not call them anything, as in this case, then they do not warrant an article of their own. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect It seems to me that at present the independent secondary sources are not really sufficient to confirm notability. However the article is well-referenced for verifiability and the new title is a likely search term. I suggest redirecting to Economic growth#Ayres-Warr model or to whatever section is eventually agreed there. There is no need to delete the existing material (indeed it should not be deleted) but it should be replaced with a redirect. I would have no difficulty if the closer of this discussion interprets my comments as WP:SMERGE. Thincat (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so objections should be not arbitrary, but specific to guidelines. While there is no claim, that said model is a mainstream model, it does not mean is is fringe, uncovered. Take requirement "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally" the growth model developed by Ares Warr (and contrary to earlier objections that Ayres Warr published on all possible topics the reality is that almost their publications are all about growth model, developed by them) has coverage in blogs, in scientific articles ( more that two dozens, which include economic historical, ecological topics ) so if it is found that there is a coverage not due to promotional activity - then it is satisfied. then is it possible to write the whole article using second sources? Yes, because there are descriptions and discussion of the model in blogs and posts ( though author materials are much more rich in details, but there is no requirement, that outside sources should be more rich in details. Then the notability of model is underlined in outside sources are following: the model includes energy as a source of growth which no other (widely discussed) model has included. This way this model is an outlier to all other previous models. And more due to special feature it relates to ecology, historical studies somewhat more, than other growth models. Now why there are fewer references for the model than for, say Solow model? Just because the model is relatively new. But there is no requirement that topic should be half century old to be included. Now a list : outside descriptions from which an article can be written ( independent of reliability),Andre_.pdf ( this paper IS about Ayres Warr model and not about Solow model or some other model of growth) (brief description and hint of importance to ecology) brief description ( energy efficiency related ) - a study which applies the Ayres Warr model mentions it context of stimulating growth - thermodynamic efficiency as Ayres Warr model shows is a key to economic growth - application of model to own research use of model excerpts of essence of Ayres Warr approach review of Ayres Warr work review in Serbian ( direct use of "Ayres Warr model" call (Serbian: "Model Ayres-Warr-a"); books Smil Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems; The Economics and Politics of Climate Change; Microeconomic Theory Old and New: A Student's Guide SergeyKurdakov (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
"Ok, so objections should be not arbitrary, but specific to guidelines." - And so should support. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
last comment to you (I'm sorry man, but I have right to refuse to talk to the person whom I personally consider ultimate troll ) "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." - it is possible to write fairly large article and not only definition and only one sentence using above provided links. So according to this guideline the topic has a wide coverage and is notable.10:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)SergeyKurdakov (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Where was the Serbian source published? Which peer-reviewed journal? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that the model seems to be gaining coverage, which I attribute to its superiority. I hope to soon be able to provide a critique on this model from a technological-economic history standpoint, which is in substantial agreement. There are plenty of growth models, but this is the best one.Phmoreno (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If the model is gaining coverage, it will soon be referenced in reliable sources under some sort of name. But until then, you should not try to use Wikipedia to try to add a varnish of notability to a topic that does not yet have it. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So if anyone doubts that it is possible to write a faily large article on subject, using words from scientific articles, I would produce it here, providing adequate links to support each paragraph. Just for the case - that the criteria of wikipedia notability is met ( the subject is covered outside in comprehensible way), without even considering that there are published books ( which content itself might worth to review on wikipedia ) by academic publisher with reviews on these books ( which are enough for another article) ) SergeyKurdakov (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again (and since you have promised several ties to stop arguying, maybe for the last time?):
Please note what the subject is. It is "Ayres-Warr model". You need a "significant coverage" so that you can write a "fairly large" article about the "Ayres-Warr model". You can't do that based on articles that do not even mention the "Ayres-Warr model". Your claim that these papers are about the "Ayres-Warr model" is based on nothing than your word. You are not a reliable source. You can't just claim that the papers are about the Ayres-Warr model, the papers themselves have to say so. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Summary of scope of subject and provided links:

Just to keep information together not scattered.

Scope of the work of Ayres Warr on the field of model

according to author his prior experience "led to the development of a new theory of economic growth, the Useful Work Growth Theory based on the Ayres-Warr Model"

the peer reviewed articles concerning subject are

“Useful Work and Information as Drivers of Economic Growth”, Warr, B. and R.U.Ayres, Energy (accepted with revision)

“Evidence of causality between the quantity and the quality of energy consumption and economic growth”.(2010). Warr, B., Ayres, R.U., Energy, Volume 35, Issue 4.

“Energy Use and Economic Development: A comparative analysis of useful work supply in Austria, Japan, the United Kingdom and the US during 100 years of economic growth”. (2010) Warr, B., Eisenmenger, N., Krausmann, F., Schandl, H. and R.U. Ayres. Ecological Economics, Volume 69, Issue 10, 15 August 2010, Pages 1904-1917.

"Long term trends in resource exergy consumption and useful work supplies in the UK, 1900 to 2000", (2009). Warr, B., and H. Schandl. Ecological Economics, 68 (1-2), pages 126-140.

“REXS: An Economic Forecasting Model for Assessing the Impact of natural resource consumption and technological change on economic growth”. Warr, B. and Ayres, R.U., (2006). Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. 17: 329-378.

"Accounting for growth: The role of physical work." Ayres, R. U. and B. Warr (2005). Structural Change & Economic Dynamics 16(2): 181-209.

“Efficiency Dilution: Long-Term Exergy Conversion Trends in Japan”. Environmental Science and Technology. Williams, E., Warr, B. and R.U. Ayres. 2008. 42, 4964 – 4970.

“Exergy, Power and Work in the US Economy, 1900-1998”.Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L.W. and Warr, B. (2003). Energy, An International Journal. 28, pp.219-273.

when one of this work is referred as well as books - see site for reference - it is referred in context of model, because the content of the works are the useful work theory/ Ayres Warr model.

the model is covered in significant details, which allow to write non once sentence article: published in Ekonomika preduzeća 2011, vol. 59, br. 1-2, str. 99-110 peer reviewed Serbian publication. - on paper background ( included in published official reports, has outside citations )

additionally covered in detail, which allow to write a paragraph on each mention on a nature of model from books

Smil Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems ( academic, widely cited book )

Dieter Helm , Cameron Hepburn The Economics and Politics of Climate Change

John Gowdy Microeconomic Theory Old and New: A Student's Guide according to wikipedia note on reliability students guides among those actually reliable sources.

other provided links, which allow to cover model while lacking peer-reviewed status is not from 'unreliable' sources, example see SergeyKurdakov (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please wait for input from Benjamin Warr and Robert Ayres

I just received an email from Benjamin Warr and he will provide a more complete list of citations and other information. He will contact Robert Ayers for his input.Phmoreno (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I just got an email from Benjamin Warr saying he is still planning to send the list of publications and citations. He said he gets regular updates on these.Phmoreno (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Benjamin Warr's papers gets citations is, as mentioned, not enough to establish notability of the topic "Ayres-Warr model". Also please remember that the article can be recreated if notability should arise. The delete is not a permanent decision. As such I don't see any reason to wait for this. This has dragged out long enough already. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm expecting Aryes and Warr to provide a long list of citations and publications where their papers on the subject have appeared, so there is absolutely no reason to make a premature decision before more facts come in. And numerous citations from independent sources is the stated definition of notability.Phmoreno (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The decision would not be premature. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Recap of citations and publications: Notice: This section is only for organizing and summarizing the supporting evidence for keeping.

Authors: Distinguished scientists with numerous publications, including two books on the subject and a third related to it.(see links) Authors' affiliations:

Papers on the subject have been presented in international conferences.

Publications or citations appear in:

Commentary appears in:

Links to all the above sources of citations and publications appear in the preceding discussion.Phmoreno (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Many sources above are not reliable sources, but self-published, blogs, etc. None of the reliable sources mention the topic. This is not a difficult issue. You need reliable sources that mention the topic "Ayres-Warr model" to establish notability. You do not have that. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
"None of the reliable sources mention the topic."
Please see Thincat's comments above. He makes the third editor saying the topic is definitely verifyable. Phmoreno (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The issue is not verifiability, but notability. I'm surprised that you don't know what the issue we are discussing is, after two and a half week of discussing. It does explain why we aren't getting anywhere though. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I know you understand the difference between the way the academic community refers to the model and what is called by the energy community. Nevertheless, it is the same model, which anyone can see. You are trying to use a invent a technicality to distract from notability.Phmoreno (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the difference, and that difference is my whole point. No reliable sources refer to the model as the "Ayres-Warr model". They in fact rarely refer to the model at all. No, anyone can not see that it's the same model. I can't. From reading all the references you have given me it's clear that there are at least two models made by Ayers-Warr, and which of those that is "The Ayres-Warr model" is not clear. The "energy community" that you refer to seems restricted to one organisation and it's blog. That it is the same model is something we only have your word for, and even if we would accept your word, despite you not being a reliable source, the "energy community" and it's non rs blog is not enough to establish notability anyway.
This is clearly an alternative theory on growth that doesn't have garnered enough attention to warrant it's own article. You are pushing for it to have it's own article in order to give this fringe theory a veneer of respectability because it is "on Wikipedia". This is against Wikipedia policy, for obvious reasons.
The theory may warrant mentioning on Economic growth as wp:fringe, I leave that up to people at that article, but it clearly does not warrant an article by itself. You have not gotten a shred of evidence of notability, as all the !votes above clearly agree.
Also note that none of this is any attack on anyone or anything. It is not a personal attack on you, or Ayres, or Warr, or the blog, or the "energy community". It is not a reflection of whether the theory is right or wrong. It is certainly interesting, but that it completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.
This is not about right or wrong, it is not about you or me, it is about notability. Nothing else. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(outdent) The Ayres-Warr model addresses critically important issues of weak economic growth in developed countries and carbon emissions, which is why it is being discussed in policy circles and by environmental researchers. At least two of the academic papers make specific mention of it, one even compares their model to Ayres-Warr. That is why the International Energy Agency, International Monetary Fund, NASA and NATO thought it important enough to either publish or cite.

As for Wikipedia, it will either become a serious encyclopedia or just something school children use, depending on how policy is interpreted. Serious editors will simply quit. Phmoreno (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't agree with Wikipedia policies and think they aren't serious, I suggest you take that up for discussion on the policy page. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Articles for deletion/Useful work growth theory, that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Author(s): The Bushranger Search for "Articles for deletion/Useful work growth theory" on Google
View Wikipedia's deletion log of "Articles for deletion/Useful work growth theory"

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article , that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the .
Author(s): Gadget850
View Wikipedia's deletion log of "Articles for deletion/Useful work growth theory"

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.