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

Cyril's Economy

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

Non-notable neologism ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and South Africa. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyril Ramaphosa, as looking at the article it is not notable independent of him. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 03:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, because it does not seem lasting, certainly isn't independent and it might be routine coverage Easternsahara (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, anyone looking for that will surely find Cyril Ramaphosa, we do not need to redirect from every sentence ever said. - Nabla (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I don’t foresee this redirect finding any use. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Rozanna

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

COI/UPE editing was moved to mainspace after being draftified and then declined at AfC. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Economics, Social science, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would also accept drafify. Nothing persuades me that Rozanna passes WP:BIO, but some more time in draft might find some sources that have not show n up my my BEFORE 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reduction of working hours in France

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

There is no indication the reduction of working hours in France specifically is notable per GNG. The current article amalgamates various historical information in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH fashion. The only topical source cited explains that the reduction of working hours is a global phenomenon. This is further corroborated by the highly cited paper Huberman, Michael; Minns, Chris (2007). "The times they are not changin': Days and hours of work in Old and New Worlds, 1870–2000" (PDF). Explorations in Economic History. 44 (4): 538–567. doi:10.1016/j.eeh.2007.03.002. which supports the same conclusion. JBchrch talk 12:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and France. JBchrch talk 12:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary into Working time to the extent these (mostly primary) sources would be useful there. No indication of independent notability. —Rutebega (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this appears to be an unattributed translation of two of the four sections (lead and timeline) of the frwiki article on the same subject, fr:Réduction du temps de travail en France. That said, that part at least would be fairly easily corrected.
I think there is a reasonable amount of source material that addresses the case of France specifically, such as
- Dufour, Christian (2006). "Reduction of working time in France: a lone knight". In Keune, Maarten; Galgoczi, Bela (eds.). Collective bargaining on working time: recent European experiences (PDF). Brussels: European Trade Union Institute. ISBN 978-2-87452-014-3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-01-10.
- Lallement, Michel (16 July 2009). "Les régulations du temps de travail en France". Informations sociales. 153 (3): 56–64. doi:10.3917/inso.153.0056.
- Michon, François (25 March 2009). From "Working Less for More Jobs" to "Working more for More Money": Recent Development and Issues on Working Time in France. JILPT Workshop on Working Time. Business Labor Trends. JILPT. pp. 12–14.
- Pinaud, Henri (12 January 2018) [Print version first published 2003]. "Worker Participation in the Reduction of Working Hours in France". In Gold, Michael (ed.). New Frontiers of Democratic Participation at Work (1 ed.). Routledge. pp. 224–248. ISBN 978-1-315-19819-4.
There also being sources that address working hours in general would not contradict that. Indeed, while not all sources covering working hours see fit to break it up into region specific reports, there are plenty that do, and those reports address this specific subtopic directly and in-detail as we require. While the main article (at slightly over 6000 readable prose words) is not quite at the point of a SIZESPLIT, I'm reasonably confident that there is sufficient source material available now to expand the article to an appropriate level that a standalone article is appropriate under WP:PAGEDECIDE. However I believe this is more appropriately covered at Working hours in France, for consistency and concision, with the correspondingly broader scope. Another thing to note is that RTT also refers to a statutory 35 hour work week in the early 2000s (see, for example, the JILPT). While it may form a significant part of this subtopic, I think it would be better to have the broader scope, and it is not quite at the point where I would think spinning out an article on that specific policy appropriate. Keep and move. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple of other interesting ones IMO:
Fagnani, Jeanne; Letablier, Marie-Thérèse (1 January 2007). "The French 35-Hour Working Law and the Work–Life Balance of Parents: Friend or Foe?". In Perrons, Diane (ed.). Gender Divisions and Working Time in the New Economy: Changing Patterns of Work, Care and Public Policy in Europe and North America. Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781845428976.00013. ISBN 978-1-84542-897-6. (mostly about the specific 35 hour law, as you can imagine given the chapter title)

Askenazy, Philippe (1 March 2013). "Working time regulation in France from 1996 to 2012". Cambridge Journal of Economics. 37 (2): 323–347. doi:10.1093/cje/bes084.

Thoemmes, Jens (26 August 2024). Time autonomy and work in France, Germany, and China: historical insights and emerging trends. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 9781666969092. (this one has a different focus for once, comparing Germany and France)
Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Econodynamics

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

There is little to indicate that this is a notable subject. The article overwhelmingly relies on a book by one scholar. The book has 50 or so citations on Google Scholar and doesn't appear to have any sustained academic coverage. Thenightaway (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technological theory of social production, which seems to be about essentially the same topic. No indication that this is a notable theory. MCE89 (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editor,

Thank you for your reading and analyzing my contribution ‘Econodynamics’ and ‘Technological theory of social production’.

I agree with comments of the Reviewers.

I think the article ‘Technological theory of social production’ should be deleted, because it is too technical and could not be improved, without removing the technical details. The better exposition of the essentially same topic gives the article ‘Econodynamics’ . Nevertheless, I think the article could be given more concise and suitable for Encyclopedia form to explain to the readers what can be the use of application of thermodynamics to the economy problems. I shall try to do this, if the editors keep the article ‘Econodynamics’ at Wikipedia.

Sincialy, The creator of the articles, Madliner 46.39.57.196 (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The word econodynamics has been thrown around since at least 1934 (it's not that hard to imagine independent coinages), but in the specific sense described here, it does not appear to be a notable topic. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technological theory of social production

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

This article just promotes the work of one scholar. The work does not appear to be highly cited or have sustained academic coverage. The article exclusively cites one scholar, with exception of WP:SYNTH citations to works that do not specifically talk about this theory. Thenightaway (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a description of one scholar's niche theory with a bit of added SYNTH. The primary source for this theory has a mid-double digit citation count and does not appear to have been discussed or evaluated in depth by other scholars. The creator also created Vladimir Pokrovskii and Econodynamics, so it seems pretty clear that they have an interest in promoting this individual's work. I can't find any sources that would indicate that this is a notable theory. MCE89 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Mathematics, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editor,

Thank you for your reading and analyzing my contribution ‘Econodynamics’ and ‘Technological theory of social production’.

I agree with comments of the Reviewers.

I think the article ‘Technological theory of social production’ should be deleted, because it is too technical and could not be improved, without removing the technical details. The better exposition of the essentially same topic gives the article ‘Econodynamics’ . Nevertheless, I think the article could be given more concise and suitable for Encyclopedia form to explain to the readers what can be the use of application of thermodynamics to the economy problems. I shall try to do this, if the editors keep the article ‘Econodynamics’ at Wikipedia.

Sincere, The creator of the articles, Madliner 46.39.57.196 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons articulated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Econodynamics. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Land Restitution Movements in Zimbabwe and South Africa

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

The article looks like it was generated by an LLM. I have already removed non-existent references that were probably hallucinated by the LLM, and the claims that those references purported to support. The remainder of the article is poorly sourced. The topic looks as though it is notable, but I suggest WP:TNT because the content, as unchecked LLM output, cannot be trusted. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Topic is probably notable but LLM-generated articles are a concern with WP:V. Let someone redo the article from scratch. Also, I just don't want to encourage editors who think they can create a junk article with ChatGPT in 30 seconds and rely on other editors to clean it up. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT applies, but I'm not even convinced the topic is notable. It's titled like an essay. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - another story / essay from this creator, who has "written" other AI disasters, at the worst possible time, during the battle of the Billionaires. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump–Powell conflict

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

Appears to be pretty textbook definition of trump cruft. One sided dispute with just comments from Trump. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I planned to work on this later today. Powell and the Federal Reserve's stoicism is not unexpected and not the barrier for article creation; the AfD rationale, in general, lacks substantive policy. To preemptively address notability concerns, this dispute goes far beyond comments; the White House is now investigating the Federal Reserve and could use that as the basis to remove Powell, an unprecedented action. There are much more sources than what has been provided here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using these awful short footnotes. They are a pain to use in visual editor and it's annoying to readers who have to click the footnote a second time to actually see the reference. This should only be used when many citations require page numbers, like for academic topics when it's more common to cite a book by an author multiple times, not general news sources. I want the name of the article cited, not "Smialek 2019a." Anyway, History of monetary policy in the United States is unfortunately pretty weak, particularly for recent history, but I think something like Monetary policy of Donald Trump would be more appropriate. It's not a personal conflict, it's one-sided complaints with policy implications. Reywas92^Talk 04:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to this AfD. I wouldn't be opposed to a rename, but let's not assume that this is an unviable article, either. Plenty of sources that can be included. What other editors should note is that, as of these last several weeks, firing Powell is not just a common Trump lament, but a potential effort from within the White House. A CNN article lightly covers that and aptly notes other dynamic at play. In terms of tangible notability, a Google search for Trump and Powell yields hundreds of usable results that are continuing to come in; for that reason, writing the Second presidency (2025–present) section has proved difficult. The Responses section is also an area that would show notability. It would be amiss not to mention the jockeying for Powell's successor, though I intentionally avoided it in this article as it is not directly relevant to the conflict, which is why a move might not be a bad decision. I'll leave my comment with a Reuters article from six hours ago that broadly covers the implications of the conflict on investors. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even from this morning, Trump drafted a letter to fire Powell and waved it around. There is much more to this than what is in the article and this AfD was created too hastily. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE into Powell's article. This doesn't deserve its own separate article. CNC33 (. . .talk) 15:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Crufty and not really notable. Could go on eithers page or a Trump subpage. Nothing has happened with it yet, so its just the usual Trump bluster that would yield a hundred articles a day. Metallurgist (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]