Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Economics

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Economics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Economics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Economics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Economics

edit

Critical raw materials

edit
Critical raw materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is in very bad shape. It just lists random raw materials a few countries deem important. I feel like this information is insufficient for a stand-alone article, so should probably be merged or deleted altogether. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 12:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did write on the talk page that it needs expansion and I will be doing some of that myself. Nor are the raw materials "random", one of the points of expansion is the how and why the countries make these lista (EU + US is not a "few" and I will be adding the UK, etcetera). Merged with what? The article has just gone up, what's the big hurry to delete it? Wait a while and if it isn't expanded, then nominate it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Kolesár

edit
Michal Kolesár (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this economist passes WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. His h-index is 16, less than half of what would be expected for an average full professor in economics, so there's no pass on criterion 1 and no evidence of passing any other criteria. No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources comes up for a WP:GNG pass either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - courtesy ping to Rosguill and Newklear007, who interacted in the contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Theory of Interstellar Trade

edit
The Theory of Interstellar Trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable speculative article; the sole sources about are the author and a single commentary in a blog. The author himself confesses that it was a tongue-in-cheek endeavor. --Altenmann >talk 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I dunno, it's been cited 65 times, which seems high for a tongue-in-cheek joke article! It's been discussed quite a lot in books as well, in addition to Tyler Cowen's commentary that's already in the article. I think it's arguable that this article could be treated as notable under WP:BKCRIT #5, with an author "so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." I could be convinced to redirect, since it's likely a valid search term, but I'm on keep for now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've found some decent coverage. In rough order of significance:
jlwoodwa (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Paul Krugman although it is probably necessary to create a new category there for his less academic articles. I note that 65 cites is not a huge amount, and there seems to be only one source that is substantially about this "theory". {$DEITY} willing we will some day have enough content for an article "Economic Satires on a Science Fiction Theme." Lamona (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Economist and CBC articles that Jlwoodwa surfaced are sufficient WP:SIGCOV to constitute a WP:GNG pass on its own. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Economist is a substantial and reliable source. The CBC article is reliable but not substantial - it's a section but not enough of one to meet GNG, IMO. Counting, it adds up to 5 sentences of which 2 are quotes. That same section covers the work of economist Zachary Feinstein, reducing it further. Lamona (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greedflation

edit
Greedflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know Shrinkflation exists, but not every neologism needs its own page, many times pages such as this require much more substantial coverage to show the term is lasting and not simply a product of WP:Recent as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a distinct concept and one that is widely discussed in politics around the world and needs its own page to reflect that discussion. Also, the article when this notice was posted had 48 references - how many references does an article need to show that it is notable?
Update: Keep and move to: Sellers' inflation - this is a more encyclopedic/academic synonym.
The article also has incorporated some of the feedback given here including shifting away from listing examples to two new sections:
1) 'Mechanisms' which outlines the drivers of sellers' inflation according to this theory (information assymetry and monopoly power)
2) 'Proposed remedies' that quickly summarizes the tools proposed to address inflation under this theory (e.g. windfall profit taxes and price caps). Superb Owl (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant 'greedflation' of course. It gets hard sometimes, keeping all the neologisms straight. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I now think that a Merge !vote into Price gouging would also make sense, with the content greatly condensed too. I am ok with either a merge or a delete closing. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would argue that Price Gouging is more accurately an example of Greedflation, rather than the other way around. A lot of these sorts of terms are also very contentiously defined on the internet, and there's a substantive lack of authoritative positions on it on Wikipedia or elsewhere. MasterOfGrey(MoG) (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as seen in discussion so far, the relationship between greedflation/sellers' inflation and price gouging is not really clear to me; can't tell from scanning both articles. I'm not comfortable voting until it's clearer. I think it's possible that the articles can have sufficiently different scope to merit separate articles. seefooddiet (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this once. While, numerically, more editors are arguing for a Merge, several editors believe that this subject is distinct from that of the merge target article (and one of those editors said so without offering a bolded "vote"). So, I think the difference of opinion is worth considering for a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different Merge, I am not certain that "Seller's inflation" and so called "Greedflation" are the same thing, but regardless, I am now thinking that the better merge might be on the Inflation article instead of Price gouging. Either way, I still believe that either merge (to Inflation or Price gouging) is an improvement over keeping this hyper-recent neologism as its own article. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A sub-section on Inflation would be best. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, personally I feel like "greedflation" is kind of a left-wing buzzword more than it's an actual concept that needs a mention on wikipedia.
I think greedflation should redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932023_inflation_surge. It doesn't really warrant its own page. MJThomasH (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the consensus would appear to be somewhat in favor of the merge, but I would like to add that the Keep !votes have been largely devoid of policy arguments. Both WP:NEO and WP:Recent as mentioned on the Merge side seem to clearly should that "Greedflation" is too recent to warrant inclusion and having its own unique article. The coverage also is often more about "Sellers' inflation", so regardless that should be the name of the new section when merged over to Price gouging. 170.170.200.174 (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I see the concept as often overused, it still exists as a concept distinct from price gouging (which is a short-term response to an emergency). It's closer to profiteering. Jerdle (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed, MasterOfGrey(MoG), 美しい歌|美しい歌, and Jerdle. A distinct concept in itself, with adequate sourcing. Sal2100 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to price gouging. It's not actually a type of inflation, what this is describing is a buzzword for the act of price gouging that has already been a thing for ages beforehand. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Price gouging since no evidence has been provided to prove that this is a "distinct concept". Some other comments claim as such, but have provided no sources that prove this is a "distinct" concept at all.64.60.120.211 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "There is broad consensus among economists that the role of profits in fueling inflation is one feature of the recent inflationary episode that made it different from the 1970s. Yet how much of a role profits played is the subject of controversy." - per WSJ Dec. 2023 Some use the term interchangeably but not clear that they are synonyms Superb Owl (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The whole article as of today is nonsense and false equivalence, mostly from poor sources and SYNTH. TNT may be better than trying to merge some shreds of good content. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I personally don't agree with the theory that price gouging is the primary cause of the increased inflation that we've seen in the early 2020s, this theory has widely circulated, and even been asserted by many leading politicans, so the theory is certainy notable, and I would argue also distinct from "price-gouging," which often referrs to a shorter term and/or more localized phenonomenon. So I'd argue against the merge proposal as well, and support having an article specifically about the theory that corporate greed as is the main cause of inflation this decade, and discuss arguments for and against the theory. -2003:CA:8718:B9C5:6E53:FF0C:E0C7:B632 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not describe anything that could reasonably be considered a "theory". SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Economics&oldid=1245859589"