Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pauper labor fallacy

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 redirect to Comparative advantage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pauper labor fallacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The term has little over 600 results on Google, doesn't seem notable at all. It presents someone's argument as the ultimate truth by labelling the other side's argument as a "fallacy". The body of the text refers to what "economic theory" says, even though economic theory is the same as philosophy and depends on one's opinions and views. It then shows some "examples" by listing some cherry-picked situations. Overall, it seems like an attempt to "officialise" someone's point of view by having it described by Wikipedia as something uncontroversially true. BeŻet (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Comparative advantage. Alternatively, might be worth a move? What it describes is a real belief in the discipline of economics, but verifying if it is literally called "pauper labor fallacy" would require acquiring 100+ dollar textbooks at the moment, and as nom point out Google hits for that exact term aren't high, so the current title seems suspect. But it's hard to tell what the move target would be without reading the sources. Anyway, it sounds like it's describing "opposition to people who don't like the notion of comparative advantage", so no harm with redirecting there until a better article can possibly be written if the term really is notable. SnowFire (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a redirect would be a bit WP:OR. It has nothing to do with opposition to comparative advantage really, as that's just a trivial fact that, whoever can "produce" a good cheaper (at a lower relative marginal cost) has a comparative advantage. BeŻet (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Redirects are cheap. This article's been around since 2014, a useful redirect won't cause any harm.
    • Also, this is getting off-topic, but that bit on comparative advantage is not really correct - in fact the whole point of the doctrine of comparative advantage is not that whoever can produce a good cheaper "wins" ("marginal" is a huge word here), and it's not trivial as lots of people don't accept it because it leads to counterintuitive results. SnowFire (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think in that case a redirect is a good compromise. BeŻet (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2021 (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.