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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Economics.

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[edit]

Methanol economy[edit]

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

As we now know almost everything is being electrified rather than going to methanol it is not worth spending time to fix the problems with this article - for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Methanol_economy#The_article_is_supposed_to_be_about_methanol_economy,_not_advocacy Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Which deletion criterion is met here? Folly Mox (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines

or

14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia Chidgk1 (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that if anyone thinks it is worth their time merging into Methanol fuel, Hydrogen economy or any other article they could argue for that as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this needs a lot of work. But a Google Scholar search for "methanol economy" is pretty productive. It doesn't really matter whether this is a concept that is ever put into widespread practice; it's still a notable idea that has been widely discussed in peer-reviewed (and other) literature. Lubal (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was really surprised to see this nomination. Even if it's true that the methanol-based economy will be driven out by electrification, how is that relevant? It doesn't alter the fact that this a topic worthy of an article. Athel cb (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There never was a “methanol-based economy”. I think that any info here worthy of being in an article could just as well be part of the Methanol fuel article Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. I don't agree with the deletion rationale. But the term is a buzzword, and the non-WP:SYNTH content would be better in Methanol fuel. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India-Latin America relations[edit]

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

Articles on diplomatic relations are supposed to be country specific as long as they concern modern period. This article's title is too broad, inaccurate and whatever is added here can be already found on other articles.Ratnahastin (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share that understanding of what counts as a legitimate article at all; there are many articles concerning country-to-region relations, such as Africa–India relations, Sino-Latin America relations, etc. Also, I would like to ask which other articles most of the information in this article can be found at. GreekApple123 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Africa–India relations is based on historical relations while Sino-Latin America relations shall also require deletion.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, Economics, India, and Latin America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge the article is well formatted and cited with many references which covers this topic in depth. It does spun around the topic, passes general notability. However if merging is an option then I'd not oppose it merging in Foreign relations of India. Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page is well written and has many reliable sources with significant coverage on the India-Latin economic and trade ties and history. Passes WP:GNG. I am also not opposed to Merge to Foreign relations of India. RangersRus (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Duplicative of other articles. No point. Yilloslime (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge into other Indian articles about relations with Latin America

48JCL (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asset revesting[edit]

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

This buzzword soup appears to be sourced entirely to the book that invented the term (WP:NOTNEO) and the blog posts and press releases of the author promoting it (WP:SPIP, WP:NOTPROMO). I am unable to find any reliable sources using the term, much less anything meeting the other three criteria. I'm not quite sure the tone is G11, so here we are. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there seems to be room for there to be an article on the concept of active investing & reversting, I'm not sure this exact phrase meets notability, and there are numerous problems as above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amilcar Ferreira[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources are mostly dependent and passing mentions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Economics, and Paraguay. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Its not just mentions, its entire interviews on national newspapers that are considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia.Jeanette la Perdida Martin(que?) 21:00 3 May, 2024 (UTC)
- I humbly disagree with your take. Interviews by him on reliable sources do not count towards WP:GNG because they are not independent of the subject. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - a click here : https://www.google.com/search?q=amilcar+ferreira+economista&rlz=1CAUFPX_enUS1089&oq=amilcar+ferreira&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39j0i22i30l3j69i60l3.5623j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1 confirms he is notable, while a click on news here shows no links but only because it searches for "Amilcar Ferreira - Wikipedia".Jeanette 20 years inventing nicknames Martin(que?) 22:48 3 May, 2024 (UTC)
Delete: BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, interviews are not independent and do not demonstrate notability. BEFORE found name mentions, interviews, nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. // Timothy :: talk 09:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep this article. From the page and sources I would say this person should have an article, but maybe there is sense in requiring more sources that are independent as mentioned by the user Timothy. O.maximov (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]