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:

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Economics/archive

watch

Economics

Tables of historical exchange rates to the United States dollar

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)

Bent Flyvbjerg

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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

Michele Boldrin

Michele Boldrin (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)

Most of the references are either his own website or YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc., so I have serious doubts about notability. He did get some coverage due to his opposition to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, but this looks pretty much like WP:INHERIT. HPfan4 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Economics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a PR item, but it suggests notability as a professorship at a major university [1], not sure if it passes PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Missouri and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the named professorship passes WP:NPROF C5. Moreover, the citation record [2] looks like an easy pass of WP:NPROF C1, even in a high citation field. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Easy pass of WP:Prof. Nom should study policy before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC).
• Speedy Keep. Already noted, named professor at top research school is a speedy keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. As noted above, passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF, including also WP:PROF#C8, as editor-in-chief of Research in Economics. Nsk92 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets several criteria of WP:NPROF; the named professorship at WashU suffices by itself, as does the editorship. Qflib (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)