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 delete. The keep argument don't put forward a policy basis Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Professional consensus of economics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why isn't Medical consensus a list of things all doctors agree on? Why isn't Scientific consensus a list of all the scientific facts that a have universal consensus? We have no article listing everything physicists mostly all agree on. No article on historical consensus. Yet when it comes to this one field, the dismal science, there is a need for an article touting a handful of highly political, divisive hot-button issues that supposedly, economists "all" agree on. This entire concept stinks: it's obviously a way of POV pushing. It is not "normal". No other field has this defensive need to tout such a list of consensus positions.

The reason is that politics and economics are inseparable, and every bit of this is highly controversial. Any claim that any economics question is settled and resolved is shameless propaganda. Various assertions in this article can be moved to whatever article they might be relevant to, if they haven't already, but what we have here is a WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Speculative and highly inaccurate cherry-picked WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:OPINION WP:ESSAY. No place for this ruminative dissertation on Wikipedia. Softlavender ( talk) 03:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - original research/synthesis. Not all economists agree on the issues cited. A quick Google Scholar search can confirm this. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Although superficially garnished with many sources, this is classic synthesis and original research with arbitrary percentages from nowhere – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• keep - there is material of value there, even in it's current form, in particaulr the bits you lot don't like William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Every original research of course has a value. But Wikipedia don't host original reaserch or pseudo-research (i.e synthesis of what secondary sources didn't say). – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Possibly rename economic consensus: clearly a subject that should be covered by Wikipedia even if the current article is a long way off featured article status. JorgeLaArdilla ( talk) 13:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Can you be specific as to what this content would be? If it's just another list of "things the other side is wrong about" then it's not encyclopedic. What else would there be? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I believe that, you being the original claimant, the onus is on you: it's obviously a way of POV pushing. Can you be specific as to what this POV is? JorgeLaArdilla ( talk) 08:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• • no, it should not be covered by Wikipedia because it is original research. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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.