Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Regression


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Great Regression

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An economics neologism, though it isn't very new (it seemed to be coined around 2011.) Neither is the article, it's been a stub since creation. Gnews turns up a few articles from 2011 when this phrase was used. Recommending delete per WP:NOTNEO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. 7,790 GHits including articles in National Review and The Nation and the Hoover Institution directly on the topic using the same title as out article. After all, the article is on the topic not the phrase. Every article starts as a stub. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note It is worth sorting through the hits - there's at least a few songs called "Great Regression", as it turns out, and some sources I'm not sure count as reliable such as the American Enterprise Institute. It's also been used as a synonym to the Great Recession; there are even some references to a great regression in ethics from a 1930s book. Of course a quality sourced article would make everyone happy. While not every article starts as a stub, rare is the one that lasts five years as one. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * see WP:GOOGLEHITS. as mr vernon says the term has been used to describe something different to the article. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep A massively important topic, both from a historical and global current affairs perspective. For many analysts, this is the fact of facts explaing the political drama that's erupted in 2016. In November alone, I've seen dozens of sources making this point in English, Spanish, Italian and French. So I'd guess there must be at least tens of thousands of such sources all told. Don't ask me to list them, I'm a busy dude, but I have added some to the article. Admitedly, the vast majority of such sources don't specifically use the phrase 'Great regression'. But as RAN says, this is all about the topic, not the phrase. No objection if any want to rename. Allthough the current title may be the best possible, after all this was created by editor Richard Arthur Norton himself. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * please show these actual sources. LibStar (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a look. The Guardian article you linked to doesn't mention The Great Regression; it specifically mentions The Great Recession. The Citywire article doesn't mention this, it's about the impact of Brexit. Other editors can make the determination of whether this falls under WP:OR or not. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. Not sure if you noticed but I did say "the vast majority of such sources don't specifically use the phrase 'Great regression' ". The citywire article is by no means just about brexit, it's about the recent eruption of the politics of rage, for which the phenomena covered in this topic have been given by sources as a possible explanation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern then is that this is WP:SYNTH. The Wikipedia article talks about worsening economic conditions for some since the '80s; your additions to the article (the Citywire article which really is a piece written by an investment company employee and not journalism) are tying that to Brexit because they both mention the declining manufacturing base. I'm not saying this isn't interesting or that this is your intent, but it seems like you are making some connections that go beyond documenting a neologism and trying to create one, and it makes me a bit uncomfortable. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you're saying, and if this article was about the term "great regression", then yes my improvements violate WP:NOR.
 * I guess this all depends on whether folk agree with RAN that the article is about the topic, not the specific phrase we use to identify the phenomena.  We could rename the article  "Deteriorating economic conditions affecting all the the top few percent in the advanced economies since about 1981" But that is a bit long!  We often use short phrases to describe recent phenomena even though they are arguably nelogisms and have multiple possible meanings, e.g. Sharing economy.  Just focusing in on the aspects covered in the Citywire article, I've just done a search for "Populism, Trump, Brexit Wages" and got over 2.5 million results! Many of them from top journalists and accademics, and saying similar things as the article e.g. this from another Harvard source:  Perhaps the most widely-held view of mass support for populism -- the economic inequality perspective ... There is overwhelming evidence of powerful trends toward greater income andwealth inequality in the West, based on the rise of the knowledge economy, technological automation... " Would be a shame to destroy the article IMO. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do any of them call it "The Great Regression"? If not, then it's a non-notable neologism and you'd be using WP:SYNTH to tie it into other works. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In Write amplification, a GA status article, not all the sources use the phrase "Write amplification" - that is because the article is about the topic, not the neologism, and hence there's no WP:Synth violation .  Again in Currency war, another GA, many of the sources don't use the phrase "Currency war". It's the topic that counts, not the neologism.
 * Putting it another way, documenting  neologisms, while respectable, is something largely only of interest to word geeks. Whereas the topic of worsening economic conditions for large sections of the worlds' population, is something of interest to just about every intelligent person on the planet. And indeed it's a topic that seems to be covered in literally millions of sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 12:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But this seems like circular reasoning. You are stating there are worsening economic conditions but it seems like we are using this article to justify that stance. I just get the sense that the article is there to push an agenda, which is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be for. Especially when the sources can't even agree on what this "great regression" is, as I mentioned earlier. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2016 (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.