Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional consensus of 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. Yes, I notice the irony. Kurykh (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Professional consensus of economics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is well cited and of reasonable quality; however, I believe it violates WP:POV in such that it suggests a broad consensus of economists, when it is demonstrably false that this consensus exists. It gives clear references to reliable sources, but avoids mentioning sources who do not agree with the so-called consensus. This, by its very nature, means there is not a consensus. I considered researching and incorporating dissent into the article, but it is not my area of expertise. Also, if one were to write a section about the dissent or criticisms, it would imply that the article, in itself, was demonstrably false. In addition, most of this article has been edited by a single payed editor with no discussion. It makes incredibly bold claims and attempts to parade itself as comparable to the scientific consensus on climate change. A simple google search quickly finds that economists do not overwhelming agree over many of the claims stated within. Furthermore, the conclusions reached in the article are quite possibly original research. This warrants a deletion.  Andrew. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  03:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Dear Andrew, I believe you have a severe misunderstanding of WP:POV. To quote from the supplement: "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content." Riceissa (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You've conveniently ignored the reasons I've laid out as to why this article should be deleted. There is not a consensus on many of the economic claims made within the article. The sources consistently support only the positions made within the article and are almost entirely news articles, with few primary articles to back them up. Take the article Scientific opinion on climate change for example. It could be considered bias by many of its readers (like I consider this one), however, it is well supported by numerous sources, including primary sources and official organizations. This article, on the other hand, is not well supported (specifically, it does not sources that conclude contrasting positions). To give an analogy, I could easily write an article about how avolution was a theory in crisis. I could cite dozens of sources to the numerous creationists organizations, news reports, lectures, articles, etc. that discuss evolution as being false and a theory in crisis—ignoring the dissenting articles and opinions. Just because I could do that, does not mean that the article should be allowed. Of course, Wikipedians would never let that slide because it would not take much to demonstrate that it was bogus. I feel that this article is in similar standing: bogus, bias, and false.  Andrew. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  05:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "You've conveniently ignored the reasons I've laid out as to why this article should be deleted." No, I didn't. The only policy you cited was WP:POV, and I said that you are misunderstanding it. Riceissa (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I'll cite WP:FALSEBALANCE. And to quote from WP:NPOV, "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." This entire article violates this.

Like I said before, I do not have the time or expertise to do in depth research on the matter. However, here are a few results that contrast with the so called "consensus":
 * The Combined Employment Effects of Minimum Wages and Labor Market Regulation: A Meta-Analysis
 * $15 Minimum Wage
 * Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage
 * $15 Minimum Wage
 * Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage

This is not to mention that the article is entirely focused on a US perspective, which in itself is a major problem. Additionally, these sources just cover a few aspects (mostly minimum wage because of the ease of researching it) of the far broader consensus claimed within the article. Andrew. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  21:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regarding "most of this article has been edited by a single payed editor with no discussion", I am not sure what you are trying to say. The Terms of Use require only that I disclose that I have received payment for working on the page, which I have done. Riceissa (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regarding "[the article] suggests a broad consensus of economists, when it is demonstrably false that this consensus exists", "avoids mentioning sources who do not agree with the so-called consensus", "There is not a consensus on many of the economic claims made within the article", "it does not sources that conclude contrasting positions": In the article, § Reasons for disagreement among noneconomists already explains why there is often an appearance of disagreement. Riceissa (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia does not publish original material.--Rpclod (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article meets none of the four criteria. Riceissa (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The extent to which economists agree or don't agree about their subject is notable. We also cover it on other pages such as economics and mainstream economics.  Per our editing policy, the topic should be preserved for further work. Andrew D. (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I believe all POV issues can be addressed by including the § Examples of disagreement among economists in microeconomics section I just created. Otherwise, I think the article is generally well written, notable, doesn't violate POV, and generally a pretty good article. Ethanbastalk 23:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It makes absolutely no sense to have an article titled Professional Consensus and then include a section concerning the dissent fro that consensus. If there is any notable and reputable dissent, then there is not a consensus. It gives the false impression that there is complete consensus among economists, when there is not. At best, it should be moved; given a different article title. Though, I have no clue what it would be titled because the subject matter is incredibly broad.  Andrew. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  02:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? there *is* a broad consensus among economists on microeconomics. I pointed out one instance I know of where economists might disagree on microeconomics, which are heteredox economists and mainstream economists. Do you actually know economics? And how is this different from the consensus on human caused global warming having some scientists that don't agree with the consensus? I looked at your contribution history, and you cast like 20 AfD votes today, even though you have practically almost never participated in AfDs before. I appreciate that you're getting your hands dirty with AfDs, and I don't mean to patronize, but Riceissa's arguments for keeping the article are pretty convincing I'd say! -Ethanbastalk 05:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Four points:
 * My other AfD contributions have no relevance to this discussion.
 * Your involvement in this discussion is most certainly a borderline case of WP:CANVAS on behalf of Riceissa.
 * If there is a broad consensus on microeconomics but not macroeconomics, then why is the article title called Professional consensus of economics? (Hence the nomination for AfD).
 * I am assuming good faith in your contributions towards reaching a consensus; however, I feel that your language is purposefully condescending. Therefore, I am no longer invested in discussing the matter without comment from someone uninvolved.  Andrew. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  05:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "If there is a broad consensus on microeconomics but not macroeconomics, then why is the article title called Professional consensus of economics? (Hence the nomination for AfD)." OK, why not rename the article then? Why delete it? Ethanbas (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:37, 20 February 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.