Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cost-shifting


 * 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. Skomorokh 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cost-shifting

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism. Also very short definition article that should be deleted or transwikied per wp:WINAD UltraMagnus (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The term seems to be used in the context of health care in the US, especially involving Medicare and Medicaid. Usage goes back to 1980. It might be a right-wing talking point, but I am unsure on what grounds it should be deleted. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WP:DICDEF. I have no firm opinion on the subject; there are, quite obviously, tons of academic and partisan books explaining it but whether it's worth unfolding an obvioust set of two words into something lengthy... don't know. NVO (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is obviously not where it should be, but the subject definitely meets Wikipedia's threshold for notability (WP:N). The Boston Globe is not known as a mouthpiece of the right. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not whether something is true, but whether is it verifiable (WP:V). This is a common complaint that has been discussed by many reliable sources including NPR. Not to mention that it is mentioned in 10 articles outside of Public health insurance option, which I started. The article has the potential to be expanded much larger than it is right now.--Jorfer (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a neologism, it's been used in economics discussions for decades. It's a reasonably important concept; the fact that any decent article on the subject must begin with a definition doesn't mean that DICDEF automatically applies. Not that this is a decent article right now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (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.