Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Economics
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:
- 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.
- 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.
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
watch |
![]() | Points of interest related to Economics on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Assessment |
Economics
edit- Das Kapital, Volume I (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)
Don't see why each separate volume of Das Kapital would need its own article. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Needs trimming, but seems to be a valid page split overall. Each volume is quite different from the other, so including detailed analyses (as would be expected with a foundational work) of all three into one article would bloat it beyond compare. Curbon7 (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. For one, it differs from the others in that it was the only volume that was published before Marx died. The volumes came years apart and are obviously standalone works in addition to bearing an overarching title. The book had almost two decades of reception before the second volume came out. Its bearing on world history has not been commented by the nominator, who has not provided a real reason for deletion either. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tables of historical exchange rates to the United States dollar (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)
WP:NOTDATABASE. Seemingly arbitrary selection of dates, with little context and mostly copied from an external site. Seems like a Wikidata thing, not really an enwiki thing. Mdann52 (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP:NOTDATABASE absolutely applies here. CoconutOctopus talk 23:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Informative article but it's a mere database. Dympies (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. A lot of arbitrary information that isn't really encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Please read what WP:NOTDATABASE actually says. It does not say no databases, only no invalid ones, giving specific examples. Wikipedia:Five pillars states Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Dream Focus 20:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes - I'm thinking particularly of WP:NOTSTATS here. It's a series of exchange rates on certain years, with no explanation as to the significance of the dates or why they were picked, nor the methodology to work out the rate, not the actual dates the stats were taken on, just the year. This really doesn't read like an encyclopaedic article at all to me, nor am I sure how it can be transformed into one. Mdann52 (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- History of the global economy was what I was thinking. How the currencies of other nations over time became more or less valuable than the America dollar, as evidence by how many of them are needed to trade for a dollar. Most of the dates are every ten years. Not sure why it changes for the five most recent ones. Dream Focus 15:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe - but this article very much doesn't give that. Risking getting off topic, the USD exchange rate in Jan 2008 was very different than June 2008, and this article as it currently is wouldn't capture the context there. I'm not against an article going through how events have affected the value - but in it's current form the information presented is without context and not encyclopaedic, and it would need so much work to get it into shape that it would need to be rewritten again from scratch. Mdann52 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- History of the global economy was what I was thinking. How the currencies of other nations over time became more or less valuable than the America dollar, as evidence by how many of them are needed to trade for a dollar. Most of the dates are every ten years. Not sure why it changes for the five most recent ones. Dream Focus 15:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes - I'm thinking particularly of WP:NOTSTATS here. It's a series of exchange rates on certain years, with no explanation as to the significance of the dates or why they were picked, nor the methodology to work out the rate, not the actual dates the stats were taken on, just the year. This really doesn't read like an encyclopaedic article at all to me, nor am I sure how it can be transformed into one. Mdann52 (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Bent Flyvbjerg (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)
GNG - non-notable researcher lacks significant coverage, in both reliable and non-reliable sources. Article seems autobiographical, with 20/25 sources being written by the subject. Couruu (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources do not establish notability. Also note that this person is the subject of an extensive promotional campaign of citespam and other articles (see Making Social Science Matter on his book). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonderbro/Archive for more info on the socks, including the creator of the biographical article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Although this article needs significant alteration and removal of unreliable sources in places, the subject is the Villum Kann Rasmussen Professor, a named professorship, at IT University of Copenhagen. This seems to me to meet C5 of WP:NPROF, which is sufficient to establish notability. Again, the article needs substantial editing but the subject appears to be notable. Qflib (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have tidied up the article a bit. Qflib (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Economics, Geography, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Not to Delete The article should not be removed as the citations are available. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC) — Wikicontriiiiibute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Speedy keep WP:SK3 totally faulty nomination fails to even consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG. Massive citation counts give him an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 and named professorships at two universities pass #C5. He also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm proposing a WP:TNT in that case then. I missed PROF, and thank you for pointing it out - but given the sockpuppet's intense involvement in the article's current state, the extreme citespam, promotional tone, and general poor quality of the article, the article needs nuking from orbit and rebuilding by a SME. Couruu (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:DINC. TNT is only for cases where there is nothing salvageable, far from the case here. The detailed descriptions of what his work is about lack independent sources and should be properly sourced or trimmed but otherwise the article looks factual and uncontroversial to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm proposing a WP:TNT in that case then. I missed PROF, and thank you for pointing it out - but given the sockpuppet's intense involvement in the article's current state, the extreme citespam, promotional tone, and general poor quality of the article, the article needs nuking from orbit and rebuilding by a SME. Couruu (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see how he's notable under WP:GNG, nor do I believe there should be an exception for academics. It's also promotional - it's not really an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your failure to abide by established Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus is nobody's problem but your own, and is misplaced here, where to have any weight arguments should be based on those things and not on personal opinion. But, to be explicit: there are many published works that go in depth into his work (in particular the book reviews I alluded to above). Or are WP:BEFORE and WP:DINC, and the existence of sources beyond what is already in the article, another part of the established guidelines and consensus that you reject? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Because the article is horribly promotional and I agree with the citespam comment. He probably does pass WP:NAUTHOR on a second look, but WP:TNT should apply. SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, being able to have articles on cricketers who appeared in any first class match were once Wikipedia's established guidelines and consensus. Consensus can change. SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your failure to abide by established Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus is nobody's problem but your own, and is misplaced here, where to have any weight arguments should be based on those things and not on personal opinion. But, to be explicit: there are many published works that go in depth into his work (in particular the book reviews I alluded to above). Or are WP:BEFORE and WP:DINC, and the existence of sources beyond what is already in the article, another part of the established guidelines and consensus that you reject? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: In addition to the clear WP:NPROF pass through both citations (80,000 citations, including twelve over 1,000 and one over 20,000) and holding a named chair, there is also a good argument for an WP:NAUTHOR pass as a brief spot-check returned a number of reviews for his books. Academics generally do not receive coverage in the same way as celebrities and politicians, but (especially for those like this, who are at the absolute top of their field) are mission critical for us to cover. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:PROF as argued above, and with three books (one co-authored) that are each widely reviewed enough to meet WP:NBOOK individually, WP:AUTHOR is satisfied as well. One tap of the delete key removed the promotionalism, so WP:TNT is no longer a concern. I did some trimming on the articles about the books as well. XOR'easter (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nice edits, I followed up with a few tweaks as well. Qflib (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per arguments of David Eppstein and XOR'easter, who has done an excellent rough cut on the worst of the cruft. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #5 at least twice over. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)