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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Economics/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Economics

All That Is Solid Melts into Air

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

Relies heavily on primary sources and is almost entirely a plot summary, WP:NOTPLOT. The remaining sources do not establish notability. Also, does not seem to meet WP:BKCRIT. Metallurgist (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Metallurgist (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and New York. jolielover♥talk 17:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stubify if necessary, but AfD is not cleanup and this book is clearly notable with reviews (often by notable critics) in the NY Times[1], Village Voice by Robert Christgau [2], Commentary by Hilton Kramer [3], Feminist Review[4], New Left Review by Perry Anderson [5], Boston Review[6], etc. Jahaza (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look at those and possibly withdraw, altho I think NBOOK is too easy, but thats another discussion. Thanks. Metallurgist (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book has enough reviews in reliable sources to meet WP:BKCRIT. More reviews: Literary Annual 1983, Library Journal, Nation, New Republic. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough to meet NBOOK per above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above, a quick JSTOR search finds a review in Political Theory [7], an academic book chapter calling it a "classic text" [8], and plenty of citations to it besides. Google Scholar finds another review in Third World Quarterly [9], one that revisits the book 30 years after its original publication (which is a pretty good sign of enduring influence). Indeed, GS finds over 13,000 citations. I think it's snowing. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North–South divide in the United Kingdom

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

The article is almost entirely about England specifically and this is already covered well in North–South divide in England. So that makes this article like a duplicate. It is also lesser in quality anyway as it does not have many references. Prebenn (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the fact that the first sentences are literally the same Oreocooke (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Baffling redundancy. Reywas92^Talk 20:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Now someone needs to create the North–South divide in the Great Britain. Svartner (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no one says the Great Britain Oreocooke (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of the sources actually refer to the North-South divide in England, rather than the UK, thereby undermining the article's claim that this is a separate phenomenon. Mark Gould (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into North–South divide in England per WP:REDUNDANT. मल्ल (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI bubble

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

Tried Draft:AI bubble, but it was rejected as some duplicate of AI winter or whatever (oldid). I fail to see how the recently made article is any better than the now-deleted draft and how it's not some duplicate or derivative of AI winter. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Technology. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's a duplicate of AI winter because that article is about a drop in funding and interest in AI, whereas AI bubble is about a large increase in funding. An AI winter would occur only after a bubble burst. ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AI boom (despite the seeming grudge-based nature of this AfD). I don't think it's redundant with AI winter because that is about general cycles in artificial intelligence, whereas this is specifically about 2020s generative AI. But having a separate article for a bubble that has yet to burst seems WP:TOOSOON. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the seeming grudge-based nature: "grudge-based"? How have I held a grudge against this topic or the article? I didn't think that this article would be created recently, honestly. George Ho (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the recently made article is any better than the now-deleted draft -- Unless I'm missing something I'm not sure how your unrelated draft has anything to do with this article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created a draft, citing reliable sources, trying to contest the so-called "AI boom", but it was rejected. As I figured, trying to prey the draft up still isn't worth another rejection. If that's unconvincing, shall I ping the one who rejected my draft then? George Ho (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I really meant, I just now requested un-deleting the draft I made... just in past revisions, i.e. for historical use. George Ho (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first draft I was referring to (old ID). Any similarities and differences so far? George Ho (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD isn't the right place for this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? You said my draft is unrelated and doesn't have anything to do with this article, so I showed you the contrary. George Ho (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the place to discuss drafts, and this AfD is not about your draft. It is the place to discuss whether an existing article in article space should be deleted, and so the article under discussion is the existing AI bubble article, not your draft. I don't know how to put this any more clearly. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well cited with a lot of independent sources. Don't see how this is redundant to AI winter at all. Both the Cryptocurrency bubble and Dot-com bubble have pages. –DMartin 22:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AI boom, as WP:TOOSOON. Unlike the crypto and dot-com bubbles, this one hasn't burst (yet) so we can't properly say it's a bubble, WP:CRYSTAL references notwithstanding. No prejudice against re-creation when the bubble is proven to be just that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many reliable sources exist such as Fox News and nbc and the New York Times 2600:4040:2821:D500:CCC7:26A9:B84B:E228 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I specifically made the redirect (now moved to Draft:AI bubble) becuase of WP:FUTURE, Wikipedia should not have speculative articles about things that people suspect are happening. I added "With possibilities" merely becuase if it ends up bursting it should become an article. But as of now, an article about a speculative bubble is not appropriate.

KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to me there's enough coverage for this subject. As WP:CRYSTAL states, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.". Sophocrat (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint Kitts and Nevis people by net worth

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:NLIST. PROD was contested without any rationale in line with guidelines so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – List with a single subject. Svartner (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Economics, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deprodding was a huge waste of time. Geschichte (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added more names to the list. To broaden the debate I wonder how many billionaires there are in the Caribbean more generally. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liechtenstein people by net worth

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:NLIST. PROD was contested without any rationale in line with guidelines so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Liechtenstein. Let'srun (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need a one-item list article. This list also glaringly omits Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein. (Hans-Adam is a savvy multibillionaire who parlayed his moderate inheritance into a very large global portfolio especially in agriculture.) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written per WP:TNT. But... there is coverage of this topic such as [10]. It's possible this could pass WP:NLIST so no prejudice against recreation if someone comes along with sources and has multiple entries in said list.4meter4 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – List with a single subject. Svartner (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Puschmann

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

Lack of notability. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Finance, Science, Economics, Germany, and Switzerland. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Despite having a decent amount of citations as per Google Scholar, (asaik) he has not made any foundational or major pedagocial publications. Neither does he hold any elevated academic positions which would make hime notable under the SNG ACADEMIC. There is also no secondary coverage of his person from outside of academia, so general noatbility is not cleared either. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-keep. He is the top editor of a significant book series in his field published by Springer Publishing. While it doesn't exactly fit criteria 8 of WP:NACADEMIC; I do think the series is equivalent to editing a top journal in his field. Under the spirit of criteria 8 I would say he does meet NACADEMIC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]