Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defensive expenditures

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. I was persuaded by a review of the article and the sources mentioned that the two delete opinions misunderstood the context of the topic. That having been said, the article provides little if any context, is more or less a dictionary entry, and this article needs to be expanded beyond that lest we be back here in a day or two with someone arguing WP:NOT. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive expenditures[edit]

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

Little more than a dictionary definition: "refs" have been supplied but do not convince me that an article can be written on this topic. PamD 17:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI'm not sure how to reply best so feel free to reformat this. Defensive expenditures is a key concept in development economics and comes up in many Wikipedia articles (Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare is one example). Although not necessarily a twenty page article, there is enough to warrant a full article in time - also known as preventative expenditure, there is debate within the economics community as to to what extent this expenditure should be included in economic growth models. Some argue fully like it is in GDP while others argue it should be subtracted (ISEW). It will also become more and more relevant as climate change continues - expenditures to protect communities and countries will begin to form larger and larger portions of GDP and therefore become more and more relevant. This is a very brief overview as to why I think defensive expenditures as a topic undoubtedly warrants a Wikipedia article.131.251.253.107 (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am certainly not an expert on environmental accounting, but even the first page of the standard GBooks search produces a number of reliable sources discussing this topic. The fact that some of them are dismissive of the concept certainly does not make the topic non-notable when even those still go into some detail about their reasons for being dismissive - it simply means that an NPOV treatment will need to give both sides of the argument, and will probably need editors with some knowledge of arguments about environmental accounting to do so properly. PWilkinson (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Military Budget (same concept, different term). "Defense expenditures" has the same redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisarepa (talk • contribs) 06:18, 11 June 2014
Delete and redirect to Military Budget. Good solution. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The two votes above me don't seem to have understood what the topic is. Defensive expenditure is very different from defense expenditure. I think there is enough material to make an article here but it needs serious work. SPACKlick (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does seem to be a recognized concept in environmental economics. The first Google Books result (which was an RS) devoted four paragraphs to the concept, and other sources gave critiques of it that again were more than passing mentions. There's sufficient material to build an article. I think there's been some confusion above; it's distinct from 'defense' in the military sense.
I only found one reference that used the term in a military context--a quote that a Chinese officer made to a newspaper twenty years ago, used in a conference paper ("South Asia In 2020: Future Strategic Balances And Alliances" U.S. Army War College, 2002). A hatnote such as {{about-distinguish}}pointing to military budget may be useful however. Adding a redirect of Defensive expenditure (no 's') to the article seems sensible as well. 91.125.29.135 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2014 (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.