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

List of international trips made by Humza Yousaf

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

Fancruft Polygnotus (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Humza Yousaf, there isn't enough there to have a separate article Giuliotf (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Economics, Lists, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this "fancruft" is rather preposterous and not a rationale for deletion. These sorts of lists are common for world leaders nowadays and I would consider a speedy close if you can't bother writing more than one inapplicable word. But I agree with Giuliotf that this is quite short and can be speedily merged to the main article – Premiership of Humza Yousaf#International visits is the obvious place for this. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 So you are saying this is important information that deserves its place in an encyclopedia? Can you explain why? Yousaf went on 4 short trips abroad, nothing of note happened, and he returned safe and sound. I see it as similar to overly detailed descriptions of Pokemon. It would be worth merging if there was something to merge, but there is nothing of substance here. Am I missing something? Was there a diplomatic incident I am unaware of, was he attacked by a rabbit, did he invent Cubism during one of these trips? Polygnotus (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So make that argument upfront, not some meaningless "fancruft." Not sure why you need to make up this random crap about Cubism. Category:Lists of diplomatic trips, Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of state, and Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of government have dozens of these lists, and few of these folks got into diplomatic incidents. So I agree that 4 short trips don't need a standalone article, but yes, this is still certainly encyclopedic information relevant to his premiership and inclusion in that article is more than appropriate. I'm rather baffled by the suggestion that there's nothing of substance here: the Brussels trip is already covered at Premiership of Humza Yousaf#European Union, and working on climate issues and British–Irish collaboration are important actions taken by a premier. — Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 British–Irish? I guess that would be worth reporting on. Yousaf is Scottish. Would it surprise you if I told you that those cats are full of unencyclopedic fancruft?

If nothing out of the ordinary happened during those trips, and he just went there, shook a few hands and had a few conversations (which is his job) and then returned home without any incident, then what is there to report on for an encyclopedia, other than the bland fact that it happened? And we certainly don't need a separate article for what can be described in a sentence or two on the BLP.

If he invented Cubism, got attacked by a rabbit, or got caught on a hot mic calling Kim Jong Il "adorable" which caused a diplomatic incident then at least there would be something to write about and then we could have a stand-alone article about the North Korean declaration of war against Scotland. Polygnotus (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"full of unencyclopedic fancruft" Okay, feel free to nominate them all for deletion. Sorry people think it's relevant to report what our political leaders do for their jobs. Bye! — Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is relevant to report what he does for his job, which is why I haven't nominated Humza Yousaf for deletion, but I don't see why we need a separate article about his 4 trips. If he had made 50 trips and there was a lot to say about each one and a lot of media coverage then WP:SPLITTING would be a good idea. I don't think that is the case here. Please see Wikipedia:Splitting#When_to_split. Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I already agreed that a separate article is unnecessary... — Reywas92^Talk 05:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selected content and citations back. While Scotland is a separate country, it's not sovereign or separate from the United Kingdom. The trips are not so important, therefore, for a separate list. I am partly Scots in ancestry and have visited Scotland. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to officially distance myself from Bearian's comments. Polygnotus (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Humza Yousaf per nom. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. states and territories by median wage and mean wage

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

Page is nearly empty. There is a better article for this: List of U.S. states and territories by income. Timeshifter (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like it had a table before. diff The table was removed due to a lack of verification. – The Grid (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Since the tables all used US Bureau of Labor Statistics data, their removal appears to have been in error. I will go ahead and restore them so that we can accurately review this article. Rublamb (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb. It was not an error. See my comment below. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before it removal, the text indicated that the tables used statistics from the US Bureau of Labor. This is an allowable way to cite a source. Thus, the deletion was in error. Regardless, the content now has adequate, reliable sources. Rublamb (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb. See my reply to you farther down. The 2 sources you added do not apply. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep per the WP:HEYMANN, as the article now has content that makes sense and is sourced. Rublamb (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely needs maintenance to bring it up to 2025. --Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Burroughs'10 and Rublamb: I think you all are missing the point. List of U.S. states and territories by income is a much better, and longer article with more tables. I removed the poorly referenced median wage map and table (that I created) from that article too. The CNBC reference for them mentions US Bureau of Labor Statistics in passing but it doesn't link to the exact source, nor mention whether it is for full-time workers, or both full and part-time workers. I assume it is both, because as someone pointed out on the talk page there is a firm BLS source showing a much higher median full-time wage for the US as a whole. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, than there are two options that are preferable an AfD, according to WP:DELETE. One is to MERGE the two articles, making sure that the content here is included or updated in the other article. (See WP:ATD-M). The other option is to tag this as needing to be updated. (see WP:ATD-T) The content is not that out of date, since U.S. Census data always runs at least a year behind its release date. For example, the 2023 data cited here was published in 2024. As it stands, your nomination for lack on content has been addressed. Rublamb (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb. The map and tables you added back do not meet WP:Verify, as I said in my edit summaries, and on the talk page, and here. The 2 references you added do not apply to the map or the tables you added back. Household median income is not personal median income. And the other link did not have any state data. Could you please revert your additions. Then I can merge the empty page easier via WP:ATD-T as you suggested, and then redirect the page. And please change your vote to delete. So that when I redirect the page there will likely be no objections. Otherwise I may have to merge bad tables/map, only to have to delete them (again) from the better article. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I added a source for median income to a table about median income, I don't understand your objection. I think you need to wait to see the outcome of the AfD. WP:DELETE specifies that merging cannot be used as a way to delete content or to delete an article. Rublamb (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb. I previously wrote: "Household median income is not personal median income." The 2023 annual median wage table is for personal, not household, median wage. Do you know the difference?

The link you just added for the 2022 annual mean wage table does not have data matching the table. Look up Alabama for example in your reference. The data does not match the table data. None of the references for the 2022 table support WP:Verify for that table. WP:Verify says: "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." That is why I removed that table previously. It still does not have a reliable citation. Why are you adding back unverified tables? That is a violation of Wikipedia policies. I could remove it and not violate any rules. And consensus at the article talk page would be required to add it back.

But I will leave the unverified map and tables in the article until the AFD finishes. Maybe someone will find references for the 2022 or 2023 table that actually verifies the data in the table. That would be great. The map I created is based on the 2023 table. So the map is not verified too.

I see in your latest article edits that you removed the original 2023 median wage table, and substituted a ~~different 2023~~ 2025 median wage table. ~~It also has inadequate references since~~ it does not link to its US Census Bureau source. See discussion:

Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by median wage and mean wage.

But why are you doing all this work in this article? It would be much better to add the table to the talk page of List of U.S. states and territories by income for discussion about finding the US Census Bureau reference. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article, as per WP:EDITATAFD, adding data that was more recent, based on date of publication. Merging is a great option but the article has to survive the AfD first. Rublamb (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Changing my response from keep to merge to either Household income in the United States and/or List of U.S. states and territories by income. After working the the data, it is clear these three articles are all based on the same government sources. There is no compelling reason for this article to exist as a third presentation of the same information, and these other two article are vastly superior, both in text and tables. Rublamb (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical game theory

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

This seems to be original research, with the main references specifically using this terminology being a 2002 Phd THesis (https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/4191) and a 2018 paper with only 15 citations (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b03835). The term "Knowlecules" on Google has very few results.

Proposing it under AfD as an editor declined it through PROD 7804j (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. 7804j (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete not enough reception in academia. It has been cited 15 times, so clearly not a well established concept. Furthermore, there is actually a completely unrelated 2016 more highly cited paper that uses the same term for some very different (RNA interactions) further muddling the terminology and adding to the confusion. --hroest 20:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tveloz should know better that we have never published original research, which is outside the scope of an encyclopedia and places our charitable status in danger as mission creep. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]