Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence


 * 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. No prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With a heavy heart, I nominate this article that's shown a lot of effort and work over the years, but is ultimately a massive POV fork of Keynesian economics, providing a synthesized concept of a point of time that the references...don't really support. There's a few hints here and there, but it ultimately reads more like an academic research project than an encyclopedia article. Nothing regarding an actual "Keynesian resurgence" in this time frame has been written, only information about how Keynesian thought gained some popularity following the crash, and without enough attention on the alternative options floated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Snow keep With all due respect to the nominator, calling this a POV fork of Keynesian Economics is like calling 2012 Summer Olympics a POV fork of Olympic games. There are literally thousands of sources entirely about the Keynesian resurgence, including dozens of whole books.   From Harvard University Press alone there is both The Return to Keynes and Maynard's Revenge, which is described here on amazon as being about the "phoenix-like return of Keynesianism." Thats not to mention the books from MIT and Cambridge, several other top publishers,  or the many scholarly papers.  There are literally thousands of easily digestible web sources on this, the first 4 sources in the article are well worth a quick scan  (the very first is from the Financial Times and may require a 2 min registration.)  The best and most comprehensive online scholarly source for the rise and fall of the resurgence is source no 5, by the political scientist professor Farrell and the excellent editor John Quiggan working in his day job as an economics professor.   I admit when I first started describing the resurgence back in 2008, I may arguably have been violating our OR policy, as I was a newbie back then and didnt understand all our key policies.  But for several years the article has been 100% policy compliant. As a reviewer of over 10 GAs and a participant in the FA process, Id say in many ways the article is close to FA class.  A delete or merge result would be unexpected, to say the least.  (disclosure: I'm the creator and primary writer of the article)  FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think we are permitted some leeway in terms of deciding how to organize subarticles about a subject without being hammered on OR and SYNTH grounds. Do any books or magazine articles structure themselves exactly like Early political career of Sarah Palin or Rise of Neville Chamberlain or House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 or Cultural depictions of Dylan Thomas or Muhammad Ali in media and popular culture, with the same contents, endpoints, etc?  All of these articles are WP constructs to some extent.  That's what we do here, figure out the best way to structure material so that it makes subject matter understandable at varying levels. We do it with article creations, article titles, section headers, topic sentences of paragraphs, and so forth. In this particular case, there has definitely been an intensification of interest in Keynesian ideas and policy applications thereof during the Great Recession, and I see nothing wrong with structuring an article around that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said. It's also a good thing our articles dont structure themselves exactly like any one book as that is discouraged by our copyright policy. In this case a book about the resurgnece with a somewhat similar structure is Keynes: the Return of the Master by economic historian Lord Skidelsky, but  that was published well after our article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability clearly established by sources. Everyking (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Keynesian_economics. I agree with nominators statement about POV fork. It is especially noticeable in 2008–2009_Keynesian_resurgence section which is basically non-stop praise for stimulus with practically no attempt of balance.--Staberinde (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The merge target you've suggested is largely about Keynesian economics as an academic discipline. This article is mainly about a global change in governments economic policy. These are two related but completely different things, there is no POV fork here at all. Maybe some are starting to forget, but in late 2008 there were regular newspaper articles and TV reports about an imminent total social and economic breakdown, with cash machines ceasing to give out cash and empty supermarket shelves. The resurgence helped to prevent that, as such it could be argued it affected the lifes of the world's people more than most major wars.  This helps explain why there are already multiple book entirely about the phenomena from the top university presses like Cambridge, MIT and Harvard.


 * I feel a little guilty about spending so much time defending this article. When compared to the topics deletionists are destroying every day, like D&G monsters, fictional characters and computer games, it gets relatively few page hits. But in the time it took to reasearch this I could have clocked up about 30,000 gnome edits!


 * The Efficiency section is in fact well balanced as it reflects the weight of views from available credible sources. Even the leading economics journalist and author Anatole Kalensky, himself a moderately anti Keynesian, admits the objective evidence shows that countries recovered in proportion to the size and timeliness of their Keynesian stimulus. Few have tried to counter this: due to the overwhelming empirical evidence, one cant criticize the resurgence on these grounds without appearing either incompetent an obvious lier. Looking at the overall article, there is abundant criticism, and from all across the political spectrum, not just from the obvious Austrian School and Libertarian types. As well as spending many hours researching criticism for NPOV, I also invited good editors to contribute to the article who seem to favor anti Keynesian economics like   Vision Thing and Srich32977. They added hardly anything, suggesting the article was already fairly well balanced. Of course, if there are any important criticisms I've missed, anyone else is welcome to add them to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.