Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible balance (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Tone 13:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visible balance

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005. It also came to AfD where the consensus was to delete. Apparently that didn’t happen. It’s still here, still unsourced, and it’s no clearer than before who Cedric Vute is. Mccapra (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is quite notable. For example, here's the equivalent article on Britannica. Insofar as we have neglected oddities like "cedric vute", this demonstrates the futility of sticking tags on articles rather than doing the real work of actually improving them. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:LIGHTBULB; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that there will be much to write about the topic. It's an important concept but WP:NOPAGE might be applicable. ∯WBG^converse 09:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the bare concept is already covered in Balance of payments. Mccapra (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the Balance of payments page has "too long" cleanup tag on it for years. It's 76K and so is too big per WP:SIZE and WP:TLDR. Andrew D. (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I don’t think that is relevant as I’m not proposing to add any material to that article. It isn’t feasible to remove the brief reference to visible balance of trade in the balance of trade article; my sense is that the brief coverage of the concept of ‘visible balance’ in that article is sufficient and that the article we’re discussing here is redundant. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 'balance of trade' article is somewhat misleading, the ARS might get round to correcting it later, if no one else does. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important topic, best covered in its own article as explained by the Colonel. Also, the nom is somewhat inaccurate. The article was sadly deleted following the 2005 AfD, it was then recreated a few months after. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.