[sarcasmic]

Sometimes it really shows that many early Wikipedia articles were someone's labor-of-love about a relatively obscure topic, and even today there's uneven levels of notability across the encyclopedia.

Instead of these hyphenated iron laws of transportation demand that no one has ever heard of that all say the same thing, the article of "induced demand" ought to suffice, and these formulations, if they exist original sources at all, ought to become references in that article's footnotes.

[pjc50]

Almost all "deletion for non-notability because I've not heard of it" reasons should be invalid. Wikipedia deletes far too many people's work in the service of a small number of core maintainers.

[benj111]

I disagree.

First why is granularity at the level of induced demand ok, but not the Lewis-Mogridge position? Why not put it all in the supply and demand page?

Second, if I come across the Lewis-Mogridge position, and Google it not knowing what it is, should I expect, and prefer, a link to a research paper, a broad wikipedia page most of which is irrelevant to my question, or an actual page that answers my question?

Personally I'm a wikipedia maximalist. Record everything, keep it around for posterity. If in 50 years they want to know what we thought about X, they can find out, and we today can reliably find out about X too.

The cost of this page us virtually zero, why not?