Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiscalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 04:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fiscalism
I've never heard the term used in this way, nor have I seen the theory described here being advocated by anyone. A Google search for "contained fiscalism" produces only this article and mirrors. JQ 06:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article is a little confusing and unsourced, but fiscalism is the structuring of public policy on private capital to maximize public revenue collection. The term Supply-side economics was originally called "supply-side fiscalism." Static Universe 08:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Supply-side economics and leave as a redirect would be more appropriate, no? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fiscalism isn't the same as supply-side economics, which is a specific type of fiscalism. Usually is it contrasted with Monetarism, so Fiscalism is to Fiscal policy what Monetarism is to Monetary policy. Static Universe 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- That explicitly fails WP:NEO. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to fiscal policy (was
keep), fiscalism gets plenty of hits on a Google books search and is apparently an economics term in wide use. TheronJ 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)- Little more than 300 is not plenty. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO, it's pretty good for Google books, as opposed to Google web. I'll see if I can find some sources and clean up, but I don't think this is a WP:NEO issue - fiscalism isn't a neologism, it's an economic term of long standing, the opposite in some ways to monetarism. (I suppose we could redirect to Keynesian economics, but "Keynesianism" is a subset of fiscalism). TheronJ 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point. However, this phrase has not been used even as a part of legal jargon popularly, I suggest redirecting to fiscal policy. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough - I've changed my vote. From what I can tell, (1) JQ is right that the current version of the article is unsourced and probably pretty close to completely wrong; (2) although "fiscalism" was in relatively frequent use in the 1970's economic literature as the converse of monatarism and it is probably possible to write a good article about fiscalism, it will take more research than I have time to do. At least until someone commits to writing a worthwhile article, a redirect is much better than unsourced and probably incorrect information. TheronJ 15:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point. However, this phrase has not been used even as a part of legal jargon popularly, I suggest redirecting to fiscal policy. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO, it's pretty good for Google books, as opposed to Google web. I'll see if I can find some sources and clean up, but I don't think this is a WP:NEO issue - fiscalism isn't a neologism, it's an economic term of long standing, the opposite in some ways to monetarism. (I suppose we could redirect to Keynesian economics, but "Keynesianism" is a subset of fiscalism). TheronJ 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Little more than 300 is not plenty. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Theron. Although the jargon may be obscure to laymen, it appears that the term is used in economics. TSO1D 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have verifiable sources to back your claim? I see none, whatsoever. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Using public policy to maximise revenue and supporting exclusive use of fiscal policy as a macro instrument are totally different things. And, as a professor of economics I can assure you that neither is common. If this article is kept it will need a complete rewrite, relating it back to the policy debates of the 1970s.JQ 01:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely. This fails WP:NEO, as I have asserted in my opinion statement. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect, fails
WP:NEO, WP:V and WP:RS. The term is a neologism and is not used in a manner to denote fiscal policy, either contemporarily or in archaic terminology. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 2007 (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.
