Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Recession

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 MERGE and REDIRECT. I'll enact the redirect; just consult the edit history for whatever you want to merge. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Recession

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

Article appears to be a content fork. We aleady have articles on the Late-2000s recession, 2007–10 recession in the United States, and the Late-2000s financial crisis. There is no need for yet another article about the Late-2000s recession. LK (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary duplication of Late-2000s recession series. There is a problem with the title of that series, of course, in that the recession is still continuing, but only time will tell whether Great Recession really becomes the established term internationally. Creating a new fork on the topic just against the possibility that it does is not helpful to users. A redirect will do for now. AJHingston (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have a superior article on this topic, 2007–10 recession in the United States.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Obvious content fork of existing articles. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect — Ditto.AerobicFox (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - There's a clear repetition of content with the aforementioned entries. Moreover, Late-2000s financial crisis focuses on the very specific aspects of the economy that went wrong, whereas "Great recession" sounds way too dramatic, in my opinion.--Forich (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on redirect "Great recession" has been used extensively in relation to other recessions (e.g. [1]) so a dab page might be more appropriate than a redirect.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page; content should be only related to how term became applied to current economic condition. Even if used before for other recessions, term does habve a meaning and history. No need to repeat other contents, however. This was my plan in starting page long ago. It has already been deleted once; we shoud re-write page. Keep intro and first two sections. If others agree, will do so. Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

content should be only related to how term became applied to current economic condition. I don't think that is possible without a change of title. Wikipedia is not just a record of current events and usage. Pontificalibus has pointed out that the term has been used in the past, and it may be used again. It might be different if usage for this one period eclipses all others so that it can be argued that this is the only notable use, but we are a long way from that now - some years would have to elapse first. There is also confusion over whether the article is intending to address only the US economy or the international one - I don't think that international usage for current events is well enough established now but again, it is clear that it has been used for the period after the 1970s oil crisis internationally so cannot be claimed as an exclusively US term. AJHingston (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - the idiom is common and readers coming to Wikipedia will want and need an explanation, but an etymology could easily fit in a short section of the main article, it doesn't need a separate article at this point. If it was to be kept, it should be renamed Great Recession (idiom), so as not to create a fork of existing articles. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Where would it redirect to? The late-2000s recession? The term has entered the lexicon to describe more than that. It's become an umbrella term to describe the economic decline of America.--Mmann1988 (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the title — I have no opinion on keeping or deleting, but it's a common enough title that it shouldn't be a redlink. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2011 (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.