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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Economics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

Donald Trump's Liberation Day speech

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

Speech itself is not notable—hence, not specifically mentioned by any of the sources—and no claim of significance is made here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the speech itself isn't notable, but much of the background/content/reactions relate specifically to today's batch of "reciprocal" tariffs, which may be notable on their own (as both long-anticipated and very significant even independent of the broader tariffs in the second Trump administration, so I wouldn't be opposed to restructuring this article into April 2025 worldwide United States tariffs or Donald Trump "Liberation Day" tariffs or something along those lines as a partial WP:ATD. DecafPotato (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this idea. I do think these “liberation day” tariffs are notable on their own that would be useful for its own article. Several economies including the EU are currently planning countermeasures and an eventual global trade war may result. Jmccfip (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best name is according to the other Category:Executive orders of Donald Trump. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just did a web search for news on some thing called a liberation day speech and found on the first page NPR, The New York Times, CTV, Mirror UK, and Bloomberg coverage. WP:GHITS is a lazy defense of an article, I admit – almost as lazy as the nomination which didn't even bother to offer a reasonable rationale. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This speech will be talked about for many years to come. The implications of it will be felt globally. GWA88 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is a significant moment for the world and turning point 182.172.103.25 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. None of the sources in the article treat the speech itself as notable; rather, they are discussing its implications for economic policy. Also, this topic is already covered at Tariffs in the second Trump administration. Arguments to keep should focus on why we need a separate article about the speech. Astaire (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration/Delete. The speech itself is not notable whatsoever, the tariffs are, and we already have an article about the topic. A lot of this article is duplicative too. Reywas92^Talk 02:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies here. As others have also pointed out, the speech itself is not notable, but rather the policy implications. This is reflected in reliable source coverage of the speech. The actual policy implications of the speech are already well-covered at Tariffs in the second Trump administration. WMSR (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tariffs in the second Trump administration per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. The policy idea is notable and should have a stand-alone page. The speech may not need a stand-alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration. This article is not notable and WP:NOTNEWS applies to this article. Wikipedia isn't The New York Times, nor The Times, nor any newspaper or news agency that pops into your head. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tariffs in the second Trump administration. The speech isn't independently notable enough from the policies imo. If the speech individually in the future is recalled more then maybe it can have an article, but for now it doesn't seem notable enough. seefooddiet (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Draftify This article would likely be useful as a standalone (maybe under a different name) involving these global “Liberation Day” tariffs as several economies (such as the EU) are preparing countermeasures. This would mean a global trade war outside of the trade war against China Jmccfip (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to Merge and restructure to Liberation Day tariffs Jmccfip (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While the policies brought forward are indeed notable, the speech alone is not notable on its own. This would be better integrated into the existing tariff article. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 07:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: Note that all responses are regarding to the Executive Order and not to the speech itself. Move into the format of the other Category:Executive orders of Donald Trump and so Executive Order 14256. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Liberation Day tariffs or similar. The GNG-passing coverage is primarily about the tariffs rather than the speech. Rename is a bit of an odd !vote for AFD, but this article's content is good and useful and I think it just needs a better article title and a more appropriate scope. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Idea for closer: you don't have to pick a title in your close. You can close this as keep and then we can immediately WP:RM after. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Day tariffs wasn't created when I initially placed this AFD !vote. This complicates things. I guess I should change my !vote to Merge to Liberation Day tariffs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Novem Linguae. My title suggestions would be: a. 2025 Trump Liberation Day Tarriff b. 2025 Trump Tariff -> quite proper if you also compare it with Mckinley Tariff SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Novem Linguae. I think we can workshop a better name more in line with the day and the tarrifs announced rather than focusing on the speech, as been noted, but I think the article is notable enough to be its own article. JParksT2023 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration given that there is an already existing article which should be covering this topic. If this were renamed to 'liberation day tariffs' (a name that I have separate issue with) it would just be more of a WP:FORK of the umbrella article than it already is. Yeoutie (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. This topic is 100% notable, but perhaps a better title should be given. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Executive Order 14256 whenever it's formally listed by the Federal Register. This EO, which was signed at "liberation day", will be about declaring a national emergency which is notable. It can contain other details about "liberation day" too. satkara❈talk 17:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Executive Order 14256' is not a descriptive title, per WP:COMMONNAME. It doesn't necessarily explain what the order is. Ré union! 18:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename: Per Novem Linguae, "Liberation Day tariffs" should be the main focus of this certainly notable topic. BOTTO_(T•C) 18:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with this, it is still unclear the consequences of this, but it is important to keep the topic separate and focused on the what happened, even “Liberation Day” can be the title of the article, but “Liberation Day Tariffs” is appropriate 2800:860:720C:7FD6:E87A:C17D:DD30:B2A8 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per above. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Novem Linguae - this article should not be named after the speech, rather the actions that were put into place because of it. If Liberation Day sticks as a name, then we could switch it to Liberation Day tariffs, or Liberation Day tariffs of 2025. Ré union! 18:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename: It is a historically important event/day and so should be separate from tariffs in the second Trump administration Vctrbarbieri (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename: I agree with Novem Linguae that the tariffs are what's notable here, not the speech. But those tariffs really are separately notable from tariffs in the second Trump administration more broadly. Loki (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Novem Linguae. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The article should be restructured to be about this tariff wave itself, which is a distinct event of historic importance that is a major escalation beyond everything covered so far in tariffs in the second Trump administration. The speech can just be covered as part of it. AbbotOfLeibowitz (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to tariffs in the second Trump administration per the points made by Astaire - 82.17.192.183 (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was having login issues. This is me. - Cheers, Burwellian (Talk) 20:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Soft Rename: This is definitely notable (and will most likely become more notable with time). I wouldn't be against changing the name to be something along the lines of "Donald Trump's Liberation Day Tariffs" and have it be a bit more all encompassingly about this round of tariffs and the speech.

Lord Beesus (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Merge with Liberation Day tariffs per rationale of Novem Linguae.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Revising my !vote upon learning of the newly created aforementioned article linked in my comment above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Novem Linguae. Evileeyore (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per what Novem Linguae and others have said. YaBoiWilhelm (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename per Novem Linguae, these tarrifs are a major event on their own, I also feel the content from the existing Liberation Day tariffs article should be merged with this article, as there is no reason to keep them seperate V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, restructure per Novem Linguae with the added effect of restructure to shift focus onto the tariffs, which is the major part of this article. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk 02:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited from Keep, merge, restructure to Keep, rename, restructure because it was a mistake. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk 03:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename per Novem Linguae, the tariffs are notable but not the speech. --Pithon314 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and open an WP:RM discussion. This set of tariffs is sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article. I'm not seeing any consensus as to a particular rename from this discussion and I don't think one will develop in this discussion. Liberation Day tariffs, which is far less developed than this article, should be merged here, not the other way around. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Liberation Day tariffs per A. Randomdude0000 Cleebadee (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Liberation Day tariffs per A. Randomdude0000. Windfarmer — talk 04:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Liberation Day tariffs, but definitely keep more focus on the tariffs themselves in the article, possibly adding more in terms of responses from other countries and maybe some notable domestic criticisms. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 05:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. Brenner

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources that establish notability beyond his public role. Most references are links to Patrick's op-eds and do not reflect his activities or significance Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plenty of articles either quoting him or written by him, but not enough about him as an individual. I don't find sources we can use and what's now for sourcing in the article is only things by him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. Most are written by him or are quotations. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I note that the "Controversies" section is a WP:BLP1E situation and a misnomer - it's one controversy. WP:SALT to prevent further BLP violations without admin permission. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, Economics, Maryland, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi 10-taka note

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

My reason:

According to Wikipedia's rules, to create a separate article on a subject, its notability must be proven with reliable secondary sources. But this article lacks any independent, secondary sources to establish the notability of the Bangladeshi 10-taka note. Currently, only two primary sources (Numista and the Bangladesh Bank website) have been used. However, these only provide information about the note’s design and history. There is no independent research or newspaper analysis on this topic. As a result, it is not particularly notable. A brief mention of this information in the Bangladeshi taka article is sufficient.

Though the Copyvio tool shows 17.4% violation, I myself checked the article's text with its sources (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note204788.html and https://www.bb.org.bd/en/index.php/currency/tentaka) and observed that the article's sentences are almost word-for-word taken from these pages. This is "close paraphrasing" according to Wikipedia policies and is copyright violation.

The article is purely based on the content of the two websites. There is no original analysis or secondary source. It is nothing but a compilation of primary source information, which is a blatant violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article is nothing but a compilation of facts and lacks any analysis or relevance.

Above all, a separate article on a specific currency note should be prepared only if the note is indeed unique and requires in-depth information. But the information on the 10-taka note is so limited that it can be included as a short section in the article of Bangladeshi taka. For example, there are no separate articles on the currency notes of the majority of countries because they are not of particular significance.

Accordingly, I request that this article be removed on the grounds of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, and WP:SPINOUT.

SMYTI (tk|CNTBTN)

08:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some sources about the subject not included on the article. And if we search in historical newspapers then maybe it will be possible to add more content to the article. I will say keep Delete per nom. Mehedi Abedin 17:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the reason. Please reconsider.

SMYTI (tk|CNTBTN)

20:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? According to Copyvio tool, it only violated 17.4% and all of them are from using repeated parts "Portrait of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Father of the Nation" (5 times) and "Bangladesh Bank's logo and '10 taka' in Bengali text" (1 time). It could be copyedited, not a serious copyright issues. Mehedi Abedin 00:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Marazzi

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

Fails NACADEMIC Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails A7. No indication of significance in the article or literature. All I'm finding in my BEFORE are his books, interviews, and profiles. Anerdw (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of being the author of multiple notable works. Reviews for The Violence of Financial Capitalism: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reviews for Capital and Language: [5] [6] [7]. Reviews for Capital and Affects: [8] [9] [10]. I didn't do a deep search for non-English language reviews, but there are definitely plenty of additional reviews of his books under their original non-English titles as well, e.g. [11] [12]. His citation record is also pretty good and I found a few additional scholarly works directly about his ideas [13] [14], which suggests to me that he might have a case for WP:NPROF, although I haven't looked closely enough to say so with confidence. But I think he clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR regardless. MCE89 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCE89. Thank you for finding so many sources and presenting them so clearly. This is easily enough to meet NAUTHOR#3, and possibly even criteria 1 and 2. Toadspike [Talk] 23:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the sources found to the article. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per MCE89. Clearly notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Economy, Society, & History

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

No reviews to pass WP:NBOOK. Quotes so extensively from the book I am fairly certain it is a copyright issue at this point. Redirect to author Hans-Hermann Hoppe? PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oof. That's a lot of quotes. I'd say that about half to 2/3 of the article are quotes so it definitely poses a copyright issue. The quote usage goes well beyond fair use at that point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the bulk of the synopsis section to deal with the quotes. Some of the content also looks to be kind of original research as well, which would also pose an issue. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. I wasn't able to find coverage to show where this passes NBOOK. Normally I'd recommend a redirect with history, but the sheer amount of quotations does pose a bit of a copyright issue, particularly as I can't see where any of this was released under a compatible copyright that would allow that level of quoting on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to those that cleaned up the article and made it shorter and more manageable. Given the available sources, it passes for at least a stub-type article as GNG. The quotes also did appear to have COPYVIO issues, which are now resolved. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And while this exists too, [15]https://mises.org/mises-wire/review-economy-society-and-history, bear in mind that for any counter claim that this is not independent, "Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.", and also for notability, "Economy, Society, and History is a major work, allowing readers to benefit from Hoppe’s insights into a number of areas he has not addressed in other books." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn MISES is generally unreliable, independence is not the concern. See past WP:RSN discussions. We still only have one source, not enough for GNG or NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I checked the perennial list and I did not find it there. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn It's not on RSP but search "MISES" in the noticeboard archives. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent discussion there on the reliablity of that source is almost 5 years old, and for purposes of mere notability of a book should, this should suffice. Had we been trying to justify a contentious or controversial claim, then firstly, it might be helpful to have a renewed discussion or RfC on the source, but secondly, we are not validating any fringe claims here so that is not pertinent to the most salient concern which is that of the notability of a stub book article. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still not good enough to count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets the norm for books. And respectfully, the arguments against that particular source being suitable are creations of an editor, not Wikipedia standards. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000 How, exactly? MISES being a fringe publication does not magically stop at their book reviews. We only have one reliable source! PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if for the sake of the discussion one accepts that MISES is reliable, as the publisher of the book, claims it makes about the text cannot be considered *independent* for the purposes of determining notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only identify a single review (from the Polish political studies journal Athenaeum) that can be considered independent - which is central to the criteria for determining notability under WP:NBOOK: The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. All other sources are linked to the publisher, the author or from self-published blogs. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find only one presumably independent book review, the Athenaeum Polskie Studia Politologiczne one that was recently added. The HansHoppe.com is obviously not independent and the LewRockwell site is one person's site (Lew Rockwell - see the "About"). It seems odd that this book is not mentioned in the text of the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article, only in a list of publications. From that I conclude that this is not his magnum opus. It also does not reach NBOOK. Lamona (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to clear the notability bar for a book. Maybe the content could be reduced in certain places, but it warrants keeping overall with a lower word count, based on references like this one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384617317_Libertarianism_Beyond_Economism_On_Hans-Hermann_Hoppe's_Economy_Society_and_History_Hans-Hermann_Hoppe_2021_Economy_Society_and_History_Auburn_Mises_Institute_pp_210 (and others) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is not clear because we need two reviews and have one. There are no other reliable reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The linked article on researchgate is the already mentioned review from Athenaeum, leaving aside the unreliable source nature, this has already been considered. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hans-Hermann Hoppe: I'm only seeing the one reliable source review so I don't see a WP:NBOOK pass. But as an AtD, it would be fitting to redirect to the author's article since it is a potential search term. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to the proposal as a redirect, a Google Books search of "Economy Society & History" (specifically using an ampersand) turns up texts like "Navigating History: Economy, Society, Knowledge, and Nature" (2018), "The Medieval Economy and Society: An Economic History of Britain, 1100-1500" (1973) and "War, Economy and Society, 1939-1945" (1979). There's nothing on the first three pages of the search related to Hoppe. A general Google search unsurprisingly turns up Wikipedia first, the MISES website and Amazon, but the next hits are Weber's Economy and Society and peer review journal called Society & Economy. I don't think there's strong enough reason to assume that Hoppe is the most appropriate target (WP:RPURPOSE); the text appears very minor at best. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i would still support a redirect (though due to content issues it should be deleted first) because AFAIK there is no other published work with this name - a similar name, but not the same exact one. The term is vague but this is still the only thing with this specific title. That the phrase is generic does not counteract that PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pure deletion not a hill I need to die on. :) Fair suggestion about delete then redirect. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pertaining to WP:NBOOK, per WP:NBOOK a main criteria in support of the Keep !votes and arguments here is number 5 which can be quoted as "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is exceptionally significant, and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." Hans Herman Hoppe is a highly notable author, though controversial, in the overall right wing and far-right economic body of thought. With that being the case, this article, even in stub form, does qualify for notability under the WP:NBOOK guidelines and should be kept. If over time it could be further added to, or if the removed quotes could be partially restored with care to ensure proper weight and attribution, then that is another matter, but notability is adequately met as is per WP:NBOOK. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That criterion is not for highly notable people it’s for people so extensively studied that studying their works is a discipline of its own. Merely being controversial is not anywhere close to that - think Philip K. Dick or H G Wells. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This author does not come anywhere close to meeting that criteria. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is not just controversial, he is the man who defines the very space of monarchistic far-right libertarian thinking. To think that he doesn't meet the criteria might be the most absurd thing I've read today, and I've read a lot today. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence C. Marsh

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

Fails WP:GNG & Wp:nprof Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Indiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [16] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind a notable econometrician. His founding of/chairing of the Midwest Econometrics Group (MEG) is I think very notable within the US academic econometrics community and his role as the guest editor for a special edition of a highly prestigious econometrics journal - the Journal of Econometrics is important, as his work on Splines in ecmetrics via his book and papers ... and these seem to me together sufficient for notability. His published academic work in econometrics is very wide ranging....and I have used some if it in different contexts.... His later post-retirement books and media / opinion piece work seem to me less notable (but my bias is towards the academic side) and I don't know how notable his work as an independent Midwest Voices columnist on the Kansas City Star online edition might be from a journalistic point of view. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded since its creation. The contributions made by Msrasnw, consisting of valuable content including his publications, serve to further establish the notability of the subject. Gedaali (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gedaali: perhaps you could explain which notability criterion is satisfied by providing a listing of publications? Do you think every academic for whom we could list publications is notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he has (as mentioned above) a couple of well cited papers, the dropoff is fast and the total number of citations at 1359 is weak. His own page does not indicate anything notable except some prior students; notability is not inheritable from his prior students. I don't see indications that his book(s) have had an impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The only type of sources I can find was this one here ^[1] and it is a book that he wrote. It seems like it's sort of notable for someone to write a book and have other sourcing. But, thoroughly scanning Google I could not find any other sort of citations besides that one. I would just draftify this until better sourcing is needed. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "was this". July 2023.

[1] "was this". July 2023.

[1]