Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weaponization of finance

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 redirect to Economic sanctions. Sandstein 06:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponization of finance

[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)

There is no cohesive theory or account of weaponization of finance (WoF) as such. All mentions of it are rather rhetorical flourishes used in discussion of economic sanctions, which the current WoF article details at length (even after having most of its specific context transferred to Economic sanctions). It should be noted that this page is tied to Ian Bremmer and the Eurasia Group, which have been involved in extensive paid editing dating back years (see here). The current sources used are inadequate:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
(Dead link) Bremmer, Ian and Kupchan, Cliff. PDF of report, January 2015.	Appears to have been a primary source where the concept is outlined, specifically as one of the yearly "top 10 risks" the Eurasia Group publishes to advertise its risk analysis services	Non-published; produced by for-profit firm run by Bremmer		✘ No
Holodny, Elena. [1], "Business Insider", January 5, 2015.			Spends several paragraphs outlining theory as argued by Bremmer.	✔ Yes
Bertrand, Natasha and Kelley, Michael B. [2], "Business Insider." April 1, 2015.			~ This piece draws from a WaPo article. Makes note of weaponization of finance in title, briefly mentions it in body as something devised by Bremmer, but mainly repeats what the WaPo article says. Does not engage with WoF as idea on its merits; basically just says "Bremmer says it's this"	~ Partial
Bremmer, Ian. Obama pushes power of weaponised finance to its limits, "Financial Times," March 3, 2015.	Written by Bremmer			✘ No
(Dead link) "U.S. use of unilateral "weaponization of finance" makes top ten geopolitical risks of 2015". www.unitedliberty.org. Retrieved 2017-09-16.	?	Internet Archive from around time WoF was devised by Bremmer seems to show some sort of blogroll/article aggregator from a now-defunct libertarian think tank.	? Title suggests it is just parroting Eurasia Group press release cited in the first row of this table.	✘ No
Miroslav., Nincic (1988). United States foreign policy : choices and tradeoffs. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. ISBN 0871874490. OCLC 17264286.	Written decades before WoF was ever devised, actually	Published book	Used as original research, makes no mention of WoF as such	✘ No
Administrator. "The Adverse Consequences of Economic Sanctions". www.globalpolicy.org. Retrieved 2017-10-26.		This is a copy of The Bossuyt Report on Economic Sanctions made to the UN in 2000	At no point mentions the idea of WoF, or even the word "Weaponization." Used in the article as original research.	✘ No
Kim, Hyung Min (2013-03-01). "Determining the Success of Economic Sanctions". Australian Journal of Political Science. 48 (1): 85–100. doi:10.1080/10361146.2012.731488. ISSN 1036-1146.		Published scholarly article	Original research, makes no mention of WoF as such	✘ No
Dambisa, Moyo (2010-03-02). Dead aid : why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa (First American paperback ed.). New York. ISBN 9780374532123. OCLC 429024670.`{{cite book}}`: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)		Published book	Original research, Moyo makes no mention of WoF	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Things get tricky because the phrase "weaponization of finance" itself is not novel, and has been used before. But I believe such mentions of WoF ultimately are just about what falls under the traditional scope of economic sanctions (or criticisms of US monetary hegemony, inter alia) rather than "weaponization of finance" as a theoretical concept per se, and thus do not meet a threshold for an independent article:

Fouskas & Gökay (2018), "Placing the USA–Turkey Standoff in Context: The USA and the Weaponization of Global Finance", Journal of Global Faultlines. I was unable to access this article through Wikipedia Library, so I am unsure of its exact contents, but the first page suggests it is about the US tariffs imposed on Turkish aluminum and steel–a form of sanctions.
Farrell & Newman (Dec. 2019), "America weaponized the global financial system. Now other countries are fighting back.", Washington Post. The article relies in part on arguments made by the European Council of Foreign Relations, which describes the "weaponization" as a form of "secondary sanctions."
Maharrey (2018), "SWIFT and the Weaponization of the U.S. Dollar", Foundation for Economic Education.
The only citation of Bremmer and WoF I found in academic work is in passing in the first page of Lin (2016), "Financial Weapons of War", Minnesota L. Rev.

In short: this article fails WP:GNG because weaponization of finance is, at best, another way to refer to economic sanctions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Economic sanctions because, essentially, if it is "at best, another way to refer to economic sanctions", then that makes it a likely search term. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to economic sanctions per RandomCanadian. The article asserts that such tactics are (1) novel (2) derive from some evolution of muskets in 1776, bombers in 1945, bank accounts in 2015, which ~~is fatuous~~ shows a poor grasp of history (3) practiced only by the U.S. (4) limited to action between nations (in one section) or aimed at cybercriminals (in another section), and on and on. This thing is a mess of semi-connected words and phrases. Its foundations are bad. There's a persistent fragrance of Ian Bremmer, whoever he may be. --Lockley (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - As suggested above. WP:ATD-R. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2020 (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.