Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private sector involvement

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 no consensus. SoWhy 18:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Private sector involvement

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Private sector involvement (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)

The article appears to be WP:OR. It cites no general discussion of what the term 'private sector involvement' means, but instead cherry-picks sources in order to describe aspects of the Greek government-debt crisis: a subject already more than adequately described in its own article. It also cites no sources whatsoever for much of its content. I have no doubt that plenty of sources using the phrase 'private sector involvement' could be found, but without sources which meaningfully define the term, rather than just using it in passing, an encyclopaedic article not reliant on synthesis seems impossible, and I very much doubt that any clear definition exists, given the many contexts in which the phrase can be used. Governments frequently interact with the private sector, but basing an article about a particular type of 'involvement' cannot be justified based on a particular Wikipedia contributor's own analysis. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh666 21:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ansh666 21:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ansh666 21:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because there is no one standing behind the nomination. We are dupes if we use our time to consider anonymous I.P. editors' AFD proposals. Why the hell could not someone use their Wikipedia account, which they surely have. I disagree with User:Ansh666 for facilitating this; they should nominate it themself if they agree, otherwise they should not burden the rest of us. This kind of thing is ripe for malicious abuse; there is a reason why I.P.s are not allowed to open AFDs. And whatever effort the rest of us put in will presumably not lead to any learning on the part of the long-gone I.P. --Doncram (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absolutely ridiculous, there's no difference between an IP and a logged-in editor here (and not everyone has an account, surprise). Do you have anything to say on the substance on the nomination, or do you just feel like making completely irrelevant comments today? ansh666 01:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, if you wish to propose a change to Wikipedia policy concerning the right of unregistered contributors to nominate articles for deletion, do so, at an appropriate place. Meanwhile, per the process clearly described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, this nomination is entirely legitimate, and your comments are entirely off-topic. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, both your !vote and then your statement below that even responding to IP editors is pointless are disturbing and completely irrelevant. You might as well argue that we scrap AfC since that's just registered users enabling IP editors altering wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on account of subject's substantial and independent notability. Notability is not temporary: Once a topic has been the subject of significant coverage in accordance with the general notability guidelines, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. PSI has been on the front pages in all European media, as well as elsewhere, and the main subject of TV and online reports, during the Grexit-crisis years (they're probably not over the crisis, still) when the greatest state-debt write off in financial history occurred. The term itself and the initials PSI were around for a very long time and, after the Euro-crisis, have been used routinely in reports, articles, and discussions about state debt, not just of Eurozone countries but everywhere. I'll give some examples and let others dig up other specifico ones.
Random sample of online stuff: "Private Sector Involvement in Financial Crisis Resolution: Definition, Measurement, and Implementation", Center for Global Development, 2002; "Making Sense of PSI: On the role of the private sector in sovereign debt crises", Global Financial and Monetary Governance conference, 2006 ; "Private sector involvement: From (good) theory to (bad) practice", ECB, 2011; "Two lessons from the Greek crisis", CEPR, 2012; "Greek lessons for the eurozone", Financial Times, 2012; "Sovereign Debt Restructuring - Recent Developments and Implications", IMF, 2013; "To swap or not to swap? Greece issues 5 new bonds", Brookings, 2017; etc. -The Gnome (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I'm the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
We already know that the Greek government-debt crisis is a notable subject: we have an article on it. To justify this article you need to demonstrate that 'private sector involvement' is a topic in of itself. Which requires sources which discuss it in general, and tell us what it is, rather than use it in passing. The problem is that Google finds all sorts of usages of the three words, in all sorts of contexts, making the subject matter of this article entirely ambiguous - you yourself have already pointed this out in the article. You go on to assert that the term "has come to mostly signify the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs" but provide no source whatsoever to back this claim up. And without such a source, the entire premise of the article - that the three words have some sort of specific meaning beyond the umpteen contexts in which it could be used - doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If there really is some sort of core subject matter concerning "Private Sector Involvement in Financial Crisis Resolution" or whatever, that isn't already covered in existing articles, it clearly needs a better title, a proper definition, and proper sourcing so it isn't based around your personal opinions of what the subject matter is. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a waste of legitimate editors' time to reply to an anonymous I.P. editor in any deletion proceeding. They should not be allowed to participate, much less to open a deletion proceeding. --Doncram (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a waste of legitimate editors' time to use AFD discussions as a soapbox for topics not under consideration. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of your claims here are baseless, 86.147.197.65. The Greek crisis brought tremendous publicity to an already existing term. From then on, and since Eurozone is still in crisis (e.e. see Italy), the term is still with us. The topic, as evidenced in the sources already here, is reported and discussed extensively, as it is, verbatim, in the title. It is already part of the financial lexicon. But I will let other contributors decide, after looking up the web themselves. Here, for instance, IMF discusses PSI, using both the full term and the initials extensively. A myriad, literally, of such instances. -The Gnome (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. You've found an article from the IMF which discusses 'A Framework for Private Sector Involvement in Crisis Resolution', and goes on to use 'private sector involvement' as shorthand internally. Whoop-de-do! If it is actually true that Private Sector Involvement is a part of the 'financial lexicon', find a source that says so. And then write an article that actually describes, based directly on cited sources, what exactly the topic is. And then find a title that doesn't read like a half-finished sentence. Because as the article stands, there is precisely nothing to prevent someone removing your unsourced assertions that the three word-term "has come to mostly signify the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs", and transforming it into an article on private sector involvement in the U.K. National Health Service. Or private sector involvement in the U.S. prison system. Or private sector involvement in the supply of ballpoint pens to Uzbekistani tax inspectors. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gnome, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you wish to rebut the objections to this article, you must address the central point. These words are used in several different meanings to refer to entirely different topics. That's not how Wikipedia defines article topics and content. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"This article needs to be turned into a disambiguation page" is not a valid argument for deletion. We do have disambiguation pages to deal with precisely the sort of scenario you assert to be the case here. Disambiguation does not involve deletion. James500 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a collation of unrelated topics that share some or all of the words of the title. It's also poorly sourced and the current content is garbled. Any valid content should go into the articles on the subject of that content, not taped together into this pointless page. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A search for "private sector involvement"+psi in GBooks does seem to indicate that PSI is a notable topic. This source says that PSI is "a generic term" that means "privatization in part". That is plainly a notable concept that should have an article. In any event, this nomination violates ATD, PRESERVE and R. Even if, for the sake of argument, this topic wasn't independently notable, or we had a duplicate article (I haven't checked to see if there is one, though I'd be suprised if we didn't have something on things like PFI etc), we would still need the page name for redirection (or disambiguation if anyone can identify alternative meanings) and the content for merger. Which means this nomination is really just yet another merger proposal taking place in the wrong forum. So I suggest a procedural close and send them to the correct forum if they can identify a redirect/merger target. This is articles for deletion, not articles for discussion. And I don't think that seven day straw poll is an appropriate way to handle this. P. S. We can't "delete and merge" as SPECIFICO suggests. See WP:CWW and the attribution requirements of the creative commons license we use. James500 (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Further, it is not a valid objection that the page name uses a name given to the topic by reliable sources which have named that topic in the canonical manner . Rightly or wrongly, reliable sources often name topics in the canonical manner. If such a name is the WP:COMMONNAME we can use it, and may have to use it, even if that name seems silly to us. PSI is nothing compared to some of the completely absurd names of certain topics that we are now well and truly stuck with because of the popularity this naming convention. James500 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving the point I made in the original deletion nomination. The first item shown in the Google search you link is (for me anyway) about "The Effects of Private Sector Involvement (PSI) in Providing Quality Management and Resources Allocation for Public Housing Estates in HongKong", and the second is "Private Sector Involvement in Urban Solid Waste Collection". And the second link you provide is to a discussion on privatisation, not on "the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs", the subject the article creator asserts is the article's actual topic. Which demonstrates quite clearly why an article on a three-word phrase isn't viable. It simply has too many different meanings, in too many different contexts. As for merging, the only sourced content in the article which relates to the subject the article creator states that the article is about is already covered in the article on the Greek government-debt crisis. There is nothing beyond WP:OR which is worth merging. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strange how every piece of text that does not fit our agenda, despite the text being fully sourced and attributed, is suddenly original work. But perhaps not so strange. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can tell us then whether these sources (on "Quality Management and Resources Allocation for Public Housing Estates in HongKong" and on "Urban Solid Waste Collection") are suitable for inclusion in the article? Because if they are, your entirely unsourced assertion that "the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs" is the primary meaning of the three words needs to be removed, and the article turned into a ragbag collection of whatever we can find which uses the phrase. Make your mind up.86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to IP editor: (1) If an expression has more than one meaning, that does not result in deletion. It results in a separate article for each of those meanings, plus a disambiguation page. The primary topic, if there is one, goes at PSI with a hatnote. If not, the dab page goes there. (2) It is perfectly possible to have a viable article on a three word phrase. In fact, we have many viable articles on one word phrases such as Banana. Or perhaps you think that page name is not long enough? (3) Who says that "the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs" is not a form of "privatisation in part" within the meaning of the CRC source and on what basis? What basis is there for saying that one is not a sub topic of the other? It is not immediately obvious to me that the first is not just an example of the second. In which case we could potentially put them in the same article on the parent topic. (4) We absolutely can have an article about "privatisation in part". Indeed we already have something that looks suspiciously like that at Public-private partnership. The question that really needs to be answered here first is whether PPP and PSI are in fact synonyms for the same thing. The CRC source, for example, seems to perhaps suggest they might be. The passage of our article that distinguishes them lacks inline citations. I'm not sure. I would have to conduct a minute examination of the sources to decide, which is not something that should be done in a seven day AfD. (5) This nomination looks like WP:DEMOLISH. James500 (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Public-private partnership" is somewhat of a defined term and refers to financing structures that share broad commonalities. "Private Sector Involvement" is just 3 English words that have no such common usage and as individual words can be combined and interpreted in hundreds of diverse meanings. That's why they can't be used as a title or subject for a single article on WP. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current topic is like Music to my ears -- common phrase with a dozen different meanings. But WP is not a dictionary. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:DEMOLISH: "the last thing Wikipedia needs is another Jerry built home on a hillside ready to collapse at the first sign of rain". Before one builds a house, one needs to decide its purpose. Likewise, with an article one needs to decide on a topic first, and then (after collecting the necessary material to clarify what the topic is, and to demonstrate that the topic meets notability requirements) to create the article, citing the sources which demonstrate its claim to notability as a new subject. And to decide on the best title. What James500 is proposing seems to be based on the premise that one should select the title first, and then see how many different topics (which may or may not be notable, and may or may not already be covered in other articles) can be crammed into it. Encyclopaedias are built around topics, not strings of words. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I have yet to see a convincing demonstration of your claims. All I have seen so far is assertion and just pointing at sources. Please go through the sources one at a time and explain precisely what you think the differences between them are. I have produced a source (the CRC Press book) with a definition that is perfectly good for our purposes. The burden is now on you to demonstrate the others are different. I fail to see how they are. If you have done WP:BEFORE, you should be able to tell me. (2) The fact that a particular topic does not have a universally accepted definition does not preclude us from having an article on it. There are many such topics that are so prominent that we cannot possibly avoid having articles on them. I have lost count of the times when a textbook has told me that the definition of some important term of art is question unsettled. This is not an argument for merger, let alone deletion. Indeed we may need an article precisely in order to document the dispute over the definition of a term of art, and the arguments that have been made. James500 (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing whatsoever in the AFD process that specifies that the nominator has to prove that subjects the nominated article claims not to be discussing don't themselves meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. And nobody so far has produced any definition, textbook or otherwise, on any 'term of art' that meets the definition in the article we are discussing. In fact the CRC Press book directly contradicts it, suggesting that the article we are discussing here (which is an article, not a disambiguation page for all sorts of topics which might possibly be described using the words 'private sector involvement') is not merely unsourced, but entirely wrong. Perhaps rather than arguing with me, your time might be better employed trying to sort out with The Gnome exactly what it is that this article is supposed to be about. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that, as the creator of the contested article, I have said enough in defending the subject's independent and verifiable notability. Best for me to withdraw and simply watch the community decide on the AfD. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "This is a collation of unrelated topics that share some or all of the words of the title" --Lauranos (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Bits of text leakage plugged and sources added. -The Gnome (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us which (if any) of the new sources you have cited directly states that the term 'private sector involvement' "has come to mostly signify the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs"? And can you explain why such sources should be used to define the subject matter of this article, rather than the entirely contrary definition ("a generic term describing the relationship formed between the private sector and public bodies often with the aim of introducing private sector resources and/or expertise in order to help provide and deliver public sector assets and services") found in the source linked earlier? [1] Because until this issue is settled, it is entirely unclear what the topic of this article is, since those supporting it appear not to be able to agree over this fundamental issue. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The contested article already contains the information that the term has been around for a long time, long before the Grexit crisis broke, and that it has subsequently come to mean what the sourced definitions are saying.
(2) Importantly, the definition you cited above is not "contrary" at all. It's simply on a different subject, i.e. it refers to the the participation of the private sector in projects and agencies that typically are state affairs. Note that this is already covered in the contested article, where the point is explicitly made about the difference between "PSI" and "PPP". Banding about false words such as "contrary" confuses the discussion. Please, let's all be careful in terminology.
(3) Now about the definition of "PSI" in the contested article that seems to bother you so much: It is a simple and straightforward paraphrasing of the various definitions provided in the cited texts. There's a plethora of sources available, of course, but we best avoid citation overkill. In case that only a verbatim definition would be satisfactory, we could comfortably use the definition provided by any one of the numerous sources, which offer essentially paraphrases of the exact same notion. We could use, for instance, what the ECB gives us, i.e. "private sector involvement refers, broadly speaking, to the contributions or efforts of private sector creditors to the crisis resolution process; specifically, it means that the private sector shares some of the costs of a financial crisis by incurring itself financial losses."(Source, 2005) Which tempts me to ask, "Now, what did I just say?" There are alternatives, of course, e.g. PSI denotes "any kind of efforts and contributions of the private sector in a context of sovereign financial distress," (Source, 2006) all conveying the same notion with different words. Hope it's entirely clear now. -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is entirely clear is that, as I noted in the original deletion nomination, the term 'private sector involvement' is used in all sorts of contexts, many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with 'crisis resolution'. Being able to cherry-pick sources that use the term in one context is no evidence whatsoever that this is the way the term is 'mostly' used. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Not even close. Wrong, still. The term and the meaning are quite specific, for a long time now. The sources, in abundance, are quite conclusive; yet you choose to ignore them. I'm wasting my time quoting verbatim what the sources state. Carry on on your own.-The Gnome (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If 'The term and the meaning are quite specific, for a long time now', why does the source James500 cited give an entirely different definition? 86.147.197.65 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the term, as already explicitly detailed in the article, meant also what the other definition was about, yet with the advent of the Eurozone crisis, it has come to mean, as conclusively justified by sources, "the contributions or efforts of private sector creditors to the crisis resolution process" and "specifically, that the private sector shares some of the costs of a financial crisis by incurring itself financial losses." Link provided above. Terms and words change meanings, with one meaning often being dominant according to the times. Such is the case with PSI. (Any clearer than this and it will be radiant. ) -The Gnome (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this subject actually independently notable? Ignoring for the moment the question of whether the term 'private sector involvement' is (as the author of the article claims) generally used as shorthand for 'private sector involvement in sovereign debt writedowns' or words to that effect, one might still ask whether an article on that specific subject is actually justified under Wikipedia policy. There is already an article on government debt, along with (as already noted) one on the Greek government-debt crisis, which is the only example actually discussed in the article under discussion here. Wikipedia is not, per policy, a dictionary, and accordingly, it is divided into independent subjects, rather than into terms, and I would suggest that logically 'private sector involvement in sovereign debt writedowns' isn't a subject independent of 'government debt', and is instead a subtopic, properly discussed in context. Indeed, separating the discussion of 'private sector involvement' from the broader subject can only do the reader (whom this encyclopaedia is supposed to serve) a disservice. Subject matter should be grouped as necessary to serve the interests of the reader, and not subdivided merely to increase the article count. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: "I don't like it!" Fair enough. -The Gnome (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly there is plenty on Private Sector Involvement as an overarching term. So sheer notability isn't going to function as grounds for deletion. Other mooted grounds for deletion include Dic Def - which there is clearly more than; duplicative to other entries, which is significantly true, especially to Public-Private partnership, but not entirely and certainly there is enormous grounds not to overlap with use of different examples; and so vague as to make more sense as a disambig than a standalone entry. This latter grounds probably makes the most sense - but there is enough specific content that relates to specifically this phrase as to make it justifiable for an article. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify whether you are suggesting that the article should cover any subject described as 'Private Sector Involvement', or only the subject matter that The Gnome says is described by the term, i.e. 'private sector involvement in sovereign debt writedowns'? 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I take it to mean, roughly, what the first line is "Private sector involvement (PSI) refers to the participation of the private sector in projects of the government.". If The Gnome feels it is primarily used in one sense and prefers to focus on that he can, but other editors can obviously expand to cover the broader scope. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If every term that had a definition was "just a dictionary item" we would not have separate articles, for example, on "collateralized debt obligation" but instead just a section under "Debt", not an article for "foreign direct investment" but a section under "Investment", no article for "new public management" but a section under "public service", and so on. Subjects that possess independent notability of their own typically merit an article in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A collateralized debt obligation is a specific product, a foreign direct investment is a specific type of investment, and new public management is a specific approach. Private sector involvement can mean a wide variety of things to a reader, depending on the industry - the category seems overly broad, and that's why I think of it more as a constructed dictionary term. My 2 cents. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term "private sector involvement" has come to denote something quite specific, and it is what the article provides as definition: The participation of the private sector in the write downs of sovereign debt in instances of haircut. This can be paraphrased any way one wants (the cited texts provide such paraphrasing) but this meaning is what one finds in a myriad of sources, online and offline.
Terms change, terms die, and terms get born all the time. The words "private sector involvement" used to be about something bland, without much independent importance. Yet, through the advent of the Eurozone crisis and the subsequent bail-ins the term has verifiably acquired a very strong, specific, independent presence. -The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that, but as far as I can see there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that states that articles can only be based on the latest definition of a term, and that sources using a phrase differently are somehow no longer valid. And frankly the whole argument about 'what the term means' really only reinforces the argument that this is a dictionary definition of a term, rather than an article about a subject. What I can't understand, if this is really about a specific subject, is why you chose to describe it with an ambiguous term in the first place, and then spend most of the article arguing about what it means. A clearer title (e.g. 'Private sector involvement in sovereign debt write downs' or something similar) would have avoided all of the ambiguity, and most of the discussion here. Though it might well have illustrated just how little discussion of the subject matter there really is in the article. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then, let me help with the relevant Wikipedia policy. The term in question has the meaning you find "clearer", i.e. "the participation of the private sector in the write downs of sovereign debt in instances of haircut." Where do we get this definition? From the sources extant in abundance. How do we assign this specific meaning, which is a relatively new one? Because the sources, again, demonstrate that this is the prevalent, current use - by far. The policies are WP:V on the basis of WP:RS. We are guided by the sources that have made the definition as clear as it comes. You want to see it, great; you do not want to see it, no problem whatsoever. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. By the way, if we have moved on to where the article needs improvement (something I avoided on purpose so far, after the AfD began), then it's progress. If the article contains indeed "little discussion on the subject matter," this can be fixed. Need I remind anyone that deletion is not clean up? -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my merge vote and changed it to rename. I was going by the fact that this is a broad term, and not based on one specific meaning of the term for the purposes of the article. I agree with user:86.147.197.65 that a more specific and accurate title would serve us better. When I Google "private sector involvement", with the quotes, the third result (second not counting this article) discusses a completely different meaning of private sector involvement - in healthcare. [[2]] A couple of links below that is a discussion of private sector involvement in fighting tropical diseases. [[3]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note : I added text & sources, also removed redundant text and reorganized article, per suggestions tabled in this AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article still makes the demonstrably-false claim that the term private sector involvement "has come to signify" only one thing. It takes nothing more than a simple Google search for use of the term in the last year to disprove this ridiculous and entirely unnecessary assertion, which it appears is only there to justify the use of jargon as a title, rather than actually serving the interests of the readership, who one might assume would prefer article titles to make their subject matter clear. If this article isn't deleted, I intend to initiate the Wikipedia:Requested moves procedure, since it appears to be the only way to resolve this. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For some weird but not unexpected reason, you seem dead set against this article. As far as I'm concerned, do your worst: I have not seen a more blatant case of "I just don't like it!" so far in Wikipedia. Only a few hours after I made the above-announced improvements to the article, you tagged for "clarification needed" a term, "haircut", because per your edit summary, we're not supposed to use "unexplained jargon". Yet, the term in the text had a direct link to the relevant Wikipedia article! (Here 'tis again: "Haircut (finance)"). No need to warn us about your future actions; I'm rather certain you will continue in your endeavors. Such negative passion is a wonder to behold but not to admire. Carry on, then. -The Gnome (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I should underline your contempt for the consensus-achieving process, which you exhibit by warning us so arrogantly that taking this "issue" elsewhere, "appears to be the only way to resolve this". In other words, if the consensus of this AfD does not meet your expectations, the consensus shall in the wrong and you, the lonely paladin of truth, will take it elsewhere. Bravo. -The Gnome (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unexplained usage of jargon like 'haircut' is unhelpful in the article. Not least because following the link through fails to add any useful information, because the definition in the lede to the 'haircut' article ("the difference between the market value of an asset used as loan collateral and the value ascribed to that asset when used as collateral for that loan") appears not to apply. Or if it does, you haven't explained how. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "haircut" refers to regulatory capital or collateral calculations and is not helpful in this context. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't like, which is not the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is that the opening sentence is factually incorrect, as I pointed out above, since the title is wrong. I'm not seeing any agreement that the term private sector involvement is, either broadly or specifically, about just the write-down of sovereign debt. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, isn't this what the cited sources, plus the numerous sources not in it, are offering? The wording used is not exactly the same across sources but the meaning is precisely the same, only paraphrased. In any case, TimTempleton, the title of the article will be an entirely different discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the lead paragraph of Wikipedia's article, 86.147.197.65, on "haircut": In popular media, "haircut" has been used to denote a financial loss on an investment, as in "to take a haircut," to accept or receive less than is owed. Which is crystal clear. So, there is nothing of substance to your argument. And BTW, you better rethink your use of the term "lede." Per WP:LEAD: The lead section is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. Just so that there is some modicum of legitimacy in your efforts at constructing objections. -The Gnome (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not the primary use of the term "haircut" in finance. I'm going to have a look at how it got in our article. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no one said it's the exclusive use. I pointed out that the use of "haircut" in our article is the currently prevalent use of the term in finance. And all reliable sources testify to this quite conclusively. In terms simple: Nowadays, "post"-EZ crisis, a "haircut" is either (a) "to accept or receive less than is owed", or (b) short back and sides or whatever. But do have a look at sources, see what you can come up with. I have enormous confidence in your abilities. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the term 'haircut' as used in financial contexts has more than one meaning, an article shouldn't use it without explaining in which sense it is being used. Or even better, not even use it at all, since by the time you have explained what you mean, you don't need the jargon anyway. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, once more, it has been used with the currently prevalent meaning. There is no case for "jargon" here, despite the efforts to stir a storm in a teapot. We have jargon when we use esoteric terms or expressions, known to a certain community only (professions, etc). Here, in the case of the term "haircut," it carries one and only one meaning in all its appearances in mass media during and after (sic) the crisis. The sources testify to this. -The Gnome (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just informed you that you are using it in a sense that is not the primary, prevalent, dominant, or commonly understood meaning in financial discourse. That's not what it means regardless of whether some folks sometimes use it to mean something different somehow. SPECIFICO talk 13:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Gnome, Wikipedia articles are written for a general readership. We have no reason to assume that they know (or care) what the 'currently prevalent' meaning of jargon like 'haircut' is. You apparent inability to understand that Wikipedia articles are written for the benefit of readers rather than to satisfy the obsessions of contributors explains much of your reluctance to write in comprehensible common English, but does not excuse it. Learn to write for your readership. Or find another hobby. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to both: Actually the term "haircut" has the primary, prevalent, dominant, and commonly understood meaning in financial discourse today as used in the article. For the umpteenth time, here's a random sample of sources using the term: A, B, C, D, E. I have no problem whatsoever, of course, of changing the term to something equivalent. Do some constructive work and replace it instead of stirring teacup storms. (The only reason you are carrying on this irrelevant to the AfD conversation is because I commented on the silly tagging of the term.) As to my "Wikipedia hobby" , I'm quite content not making money out of my contributions. If others do make money, and are proud of it, I could not care less. -The Gnome (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That list appears to be a googled heap of remarkably weak references, from the blogosphere to cable news jargon. The dominant mainstream usage of the term haircut can be found here, at the website of the US Federal Reserve Bank, which oversees the largest chunk of the world financial markets. The following link will give you 4000 items to verify this. I suggest you read and digest them before making further references to your situation-specific, cherrypicked, limited appropriation of the term in an context that's irrelevant to the mainstream usage. Link: [4]. You're welcome. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting more and more sad. The pair of you demand that we do not use "jargon" but rather terms "serving the interests of the readership, who would prefer article titles to make their subject matter clear." So, I provide some links among myriads from mass media that use the term exactly as used in the article. But, no, then SPECIFICO changes tack and trots along with a link to ...the U.S. Fed where of course the term is used in another, similar,yet more obscure context, with which only people versed in finance already know. You want popular, I give you popular. You want esoteric? I have esoteric. Decide what you want and I'll give it to you. You can thank me later. -The Gnome (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you what I want. Articles about clear subjects, properly sourced, free of original research and outright falsehoods, written for a readership unfamiliar with jargon, and with titles that accurately inform their readers of what exactly the subject matter is. Instead you seem intent on delivering an essay on the use of a common three-word-phrase in a specific context, seemingly with the intention of 'proving' that the phrase is never used in any other way. I don't thank people for using Wikipedia as a platform for their bizarre obsessions. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one said ever this is the term's "exclusive use" or tried to prove such nonsense. People can read. But you're getting upset now, 86.147.197.65. I was inviting SPECIFICO's thanks. An unfortunate slip, yours. -The Gnome (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see that you have now conceded that the phrase hasn't (contrary to what the article claimed) "come to signify" only one thing. Which is good, since I have just edited the article to remove such misleading assertions, and to make clear what the subject matter is. Perhaps if you'd avoided wasting so much time denying the self-evident, this whole lot of nonsense would have ended a lot sooner. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's the currently prevalent meaning. End of story (though I'm sure you'll find something new to waste time about.) -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note : This whole thread is irrelevant to the AfD. Contributors can disregard it without risking any loss of information pertinent to the AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a contributor wishes to advise other readers to disregard his/her own comments, they can of course do so. Advice to disregard the comments of others should however be taken with a pinch of salt. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gnome it's very unfortunate that you are now trying to change the Haircut (finance) article. It's really unsupportable. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and 86.147.197.65 should find better ways to spend your time. The whole thread after I made the Note about trying to improve the article is a mess of exclusively your doing. It's all about, if one can believe it, one single word in the text. Such a mindset is truly beyond belief. I'm opting out of the AfD as far as your duo is concerned. -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A note by the original nominator for deletion of this article concerning a possible withdrawal of my nomination. As the article stood on nomination, it was, as I stated, largely unsourced. Since then it has undergone much revision, sources actually discussing the subject matter have been found, and to my mind parts of it could at least serve a useful purpose if merged into another article covering sovereign debt crises more broadly. I was accordingly considering withdrawing my nomination for deletion, after first revising the article to make the subject matter clear (at least in the body, in my opinion the title is still unnecessarily imprecise). Sadly though, my revisions have been reverted by the article creator, in what can only be seen as WP:OWNership behaviour 'justified' (in the second revert: the first had no explanation whatsoever) by a personal attack. Since it seems self-evident at this juncture that the article 'owner' is intent on imposing an essay on the use of a common three-word phrase on Wikipedia, rather than a proper encyclopaedic article on a clear single subject, my nomination for deletion stands. Wikipedia is not here to deliver lectures on what the proper usage of common phrases ought to be, and neither is it a guidebook to financial jargon. If people aren't willing to write on subjects rather than phrases, they are quite welcome to add to Wiktionary's collection of plagiarised definitions and original research, I'm sure, but I see no reason why they should be given free rein here. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Private_sector_involvement&oldid=849128673"