Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GDP 3.0
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 21:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- GDP 3.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Economic indicator that was first proposed last month in an article in The Straits Times (unfortunately paywalled). There are 9 other references but obviously none of them discuss GDP 3.0 since they predate its introduction. This is not the first time that economists have proposed alternatives to GDP to correct its perceived flaws but very few of them have ever gotten the kind of attention that warrants an encyclopedia article. Will GDP 3.0 ever catch on as an indicator? I don't know but until it does, we don't need an article about it. Pichpich (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.