Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahn curve


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Rahn curve
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article gives undue attention to an economic theory that is not well-known and is not publicly defined. After researching the topic, the only references or explanations I could find were from lobbying and policy interest groups. There is no rigorous definition of the curve, its underlying economic assumptions, or an empirical evidence of its merits. Its publication on wikipedia therefore cannot go further than baselessly popularizing the concept and is therefore against WP:NOTESSAY Lord steven balogh  (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics, Social science, Mathematics, and Politics related deletion discussions.  Lord steven balogh  (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 19.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well there's, which is what a lot of other sources cite. What Rahn and Fox studied in the 1990s was the relationship between government spending and economic growth, which you will find more than oddball WWW sites talking about. Of course, an article on that would also include the Armey curve under the umbrella of the BARS curve (named after Barro, Armey, Rahn+Fox, and Scully). So &hellip; where did you actually look when you researched this? Uncle G (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I relisted this discussion early. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza 📞 06:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quick look at gbooks (I can't be bothered to list any of them, but I wonder if the nom even looked) shows that this is discussed. Whether or not the curve is ill-defined and the claims baseless is entirely irrelevant to whether we should have an article (but if that can be cited, it should most definitely be included in the page).  Claiming that such a short stub is an essay is also hard to swallow, so I'm seeing no basis for deletion from either perspective. SpinningSpark 22:51, 26 June 2019 (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.