Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long run

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Long run
This article is basically a footnote to the Economics article, and ought to be merged in (if it is in fact correct). I can't see how it could justify a whole article to itself. -- Dcfleck 02:05, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this article as a stub after running across red wiki links to it in a few economics articles. It's a very important concept in finance/economics/accounting. After it was VfD'ed, I did a little work on the article to touch it up, but I don't want to give the impression of trying to alter the vote. There are quite a few core concepts in economics that can be described as footnotes, but they don't merit deletion. Debit and Credit (accounting) are both simple accounting concepts, but they shouldn't be aggregated into Accounting as footnotes.Feco 02:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary: Try to alter the vote by improving the article. This isn't an election or a test.  It's a discussion. Uncle G 15:48, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you can make a decent article out of it, go for it. As I initially saw it, I don't think it needed its own article. On the other hand, if it can be described simply with a single line of text or two, might it better belong in Wiktionary? -- Dcfleck 02:29, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
 * in the spirit of honest VfD, I'll refrain from doing a major touchup until after VfD is finished. I expect that most people will vote keep... it not, I'll add writing a thourough article to my to-do list. In my opinion, it's more than a dicdef, because it applies to several diff. economic frameworks w/ different effects on analysis. Feco
 * It's not somehow dishonest to improve the article whilst it is being discussed. Indeed, that is encouraged.  Please read WP:GVFD. Uncle G 15:48, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
 * Comment: how could this page omit the famous quote by John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead"? &mdash;Wahoofive | Talk 03:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will refrain from voting until Feco (or someone else) has a stab at rewriting this article. Keep; good expansion, valid stub. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well done Feco for improving this article. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make the entry a little clearer for us non-economics types. Because of its revised and expanded state, I will change my vote to Keep. (I nominated this entry for deletion, by the way.) -- Dcfleck 12:21, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid economic topic. I came looking for it after seeing a reference to "long run" in a recent Brad DeLong posting ("Our Twin Financial Puzzles: The Long Run May Come Like a Thief in the Night"). --Calton | Talk 23:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: If this gets deleted at some point someone will create it based off of Daniel_Keys_Moran and then all of the economics articles are going to end up linked to something completely irrelevant. Worth it for the stub and a place for disambiguation Wikibofh 23:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article might be bad... but it doesn't have to be. gren 03:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.