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 merge to
Economic equilibrium as an AtD. While I acknowledge scope creep's comment around the sourcing not meeting the standard for content in a standalone article, I also agree with Owenx here that given the merge will likely be a simple addition of six words in parenthesis as they proposed, the sourcing is adequate for that purpose.
Daniel (
talk)
16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)reply
delete In other words, "it means in economics what it means everywhere else." Though I suppose one could expand the article with the observation that nobody has ever hit said spot through economic policy ever.
Mangoe (
talk)
17:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Investopedia is not a reliable source for folk who are driving-by. It is Non-RS. Its not been for a long time. It would need additional valid secondary sources if it was merged. scope_creepTalk05:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed, which is why I referred to it as an "unsourced DICDEF". The term is widely used in economics academic literature, which means primary sources are plentiful. A parenthesized comment in
Economic equilibrium along the lines of, ...(also known as the "sweet spot")... doesn't require more than a single well-cited primary source to support it.
Owen×☎13:06, 7 December 2023 (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.