Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demand-side economics


 * 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 no consensus. A redirect to Keynesian economics may be the right solution; this discussion can continue on the talk page. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Demand-side economics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mark viking deprodded this with a reasonable objection, so I'll explain my reasoning. "Demand-side economics" is an occasionally-used phrase, but typically as a rhetorical flourish contra supply-side economics, a well-known economic policy stance. Virtually none of the sources in the article, except perhaps the Alan Harvey book (I haven't read it), discuss "demand-side economics" as a well-defined set of policy recommendations, if they even use the phrase at all. (The Palley article, for example, does not.). Supply-side economics as a page acknowledges the rhetorical nature of these terms and includes discussion of it, e.g. the coining of the phrase. We can't do this with "demand-side economics," because there are no sources. Mark viking notes in his deprod that Google Scholar gives "demand-side economics" many hits. I recommend doing so with quotes, otherwise you get many unrelated articles about, for example, water resource management. When you use quotes, you still only get articles using the term rhetorically or as a descriptive term (for policies which literally stimulate demand, which is more specific than maintaning that "economies are built from the wage earner up and not from the producer down"), not describing a body of thought. Contrast that with "supply-side economics," where the first two hits are 1) the original primary source; and 2) an article about the phrase's use. This makes the article, at best, an article around a neologism from a non-notable book, or a non-notable rhetorical phrase, and at worst WP:SYNTH. If the article was about "demand-side economics" as it's used rhetorically, it would discuss that, rather than try to weave together some kind of economic policy stance from a variety of sources. WeakTrain (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that I look at other AfDs, I realize my original comment is quite long. Apologies, this is my first attempt. WeakTrain (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * oppose deletion - There is no other page for the policy of demand side economic management, despite that being a dominant policy for many governments. While in practice, Keynesians usually advocate demand side stimulus, in theory, Keynesian economics is about deficit management, and economic stimulation can be achieved either on the demand side, through government spending, or on the supply side, through tax rate or tax revenue reduction; for this reason, the Keynesian economics pages are not appropriate for this material.  Since demand side management is a major economic policy orientation, Wikipedia should cover it, so this article is needed.  If the name of the article is the issue, we could maybe find some other name for it, though this name seems adequately descriptive to me.Warren Dew (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WeakTrain (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC) WeakTrain (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose The article should be expanded rather than being deleted. Though it doesn't have the colorful history of supply-side economics, demand-side economics are used all the time.  Cash for clunkers is demand-side, bonus depreciation on capital expenditures is demand-side and most recently, the lowering of interest rates by banks around the world to near 0%, and sometimes less than zero, is demand-side economic policy.  Lipsquid (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Has significant coverage in WP:RS beyond mere WP:DICTDEF, which is all that really matters for AfD standards. Whether it is a "rhetorical flourish" or an actual hypothesis is besides the point here and a matter for the article talk page.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Keynesian economics - "demand-side economics" is used commonly as a synonym of Keynesian economics. One may argue that it is not strictly correct (the Keynesian view is that when the aggregate demand is low then the government should run deficits to compensate for it, but not in any circumstance, see e.g. File:Economic_Policy_-_Intervention_Strategy_Matrix.png), but that's the way it is used. Since the Keynesian article is much better/older, a redirect seems in order. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:48, 6 January 2017 (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.