Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclical overcapacity

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 Merge and redirect to Capacity utilization. I've done the redirect; someone more knowledgeable may merge the content in. Black Kite 00:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclical overcapacity

- Nothing links to it; orphan tag has been on the page since 7/2006 - Article itself is ostensibly a definition, but no cites and not especially well written (seems more like a very short essay) - page has been vandalized for two months but nobody noticed

(found it while working on disambiguating links to capitalist) Frank | talk 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I've heard of it, but mostly in psedu-socialist criticism of capitalism. Web links. Scholar links. Books links. Bingo. first book hit. Thought I remembered it correctly. That's why you don't see it too much in modern scholarship (7 hits on scholar). Not too many people want to associate with this theory. I think, as a theory, it isn't much, or what was good in it has been covered in other explanations. But it is one of those 'gatekeeper' phrases--just complex enough to sound authoritative but not so complex that the person using it can't explain themselves. This might do well as a subection of marxist economics. But it wouldn't really bother me to see it deleted. We aren't losing any information. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepon the basis of what Protonk found. Historical importance as a theory is sufficient. DGG (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really see this as a theory per se, although as an expression it may be more common in planned economies. It seems to be an apposite to structural overcapacity and the two are frequently discussed together, so what we may need is one article on overcapacity. Basically, overcapacity is seen as one tick in the economic wheel that will eventually be replaced by undercapacity. In capitalism, this is opportunity, while in communism, it is grave error, waste of resources, opportunity cost, and so on. But that may best be discussed as part of another article. We could just merge with output (economics) or business cycle. --Dhartung | Talk 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Capacity utilization. I don't know about this subject, but this seems to be the area in which it falls. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, merge as Jeremy suggests; that seems like a much more specific candidate. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge works for me. (I know, I'm the nominator...) Frank | talk 14:11, 6 May 2008 (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.