- 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. Although the keep arguments are relatively weak, there is no delete support besides the nominator. I am not minded to relist for a third week. Stifle ( talk) 09:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Lima Consensus (economy)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lima Consensus (economy) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTESSAY. There is barely independent coverage of the term, which is mainly based on one coined by José Carlos Orihuela, of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru ( [1] [2] [3] [4]. There is no evidence that it is a term widely used by academics or that such a phenomenon exists at all. So much so that most of the results actually point to another thing: the Eighth Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean ( [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]). Any relevant content about Peru's economy in the 90s is already covered at Economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration. NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Politics, Economics, and Peru. NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources in the article, which use the term in English and Spanish, seem to indicate a fairly obvious claim to notability. It might be better titled Lima consensus, per MOS:CAPS but otherwise looks to meet GNG and I don't think the article is particularly poorly written as these things go. — Amakuru ( talk) 11:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- There is barely independent coverage about the term for it to meet WP:GNG, besides a few passing mentions. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 01:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion about behavior
|
|---|
|
- Keep -- I understand the nominator's point on the essay-like quality to the prose and I have some minor WP:SYNTH concerns, but those fall under WP:DINC. The sourcing seems (IMHO) to clear GNG based on both existing cites and a WP:BEFORE search. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 17:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 22:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:PROBLEM, WP:NOHURRY WP:PERFECTION, and WP:NOTPAPER. Ultranuevo ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bear in mind
WP:TNT. Any salvageable information can be merged into the aforementioned article. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
20:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also
WP:UCS and
Wikipedia:TOQ.
Ultranuevo (
talk)
20:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Both are essays on "ignoring all rules". Verifiability is still a pillar of the encyclopedia and the issue of what
Wikipedia is not remains. At any rate, if you cite WP:1Q, the natural question follows: how does this article precisely improve Wikipedia? The content on the economic policies is covered at
Economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration and there it's debatable if such "Consensus" exists at all. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
22:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which source claims that is debatable whether the term Lima consensus exists?
Ultranuevo (
talk)
23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say the term, I said the "Consensus" per se. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 23:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry. I don't know if I understood you, there are many sources that recognize the Lima consensus. If such consensus were not real, there would be no sources. Ultranuevo ( talk) 23:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which source claims that is debatable whether the term Lima consensus exists?
Ultranuevo (
talk)
23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Both are essays on "ignoring all rules". Verifiability is still a pillar of the encyclopedia and the issue of what
Wikipedia is not remains. At any rate, if you cite WP:1Q, the natural question follows: how does this article precisely improve Wikipedia? The content on the economic policies is covered at
Economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration and there it's debatable if such "Consensus" exists at all. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
22:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also
WP:UCS and
Wikipedia:TOQ.
Ultranuevo (
talk)
20:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bear in mind
WP:TNT. Any salvageable information can be merged into the aforementioned article. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
20:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Per the above -- 100kb costs 0.000..............1p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:89AA:CA00:680B:8D6C:3328:A26C ( talk) 19:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — 2A01:4B00:89AA:CA00:680B:8D6C:3328:A26C ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Article is essay-like, but it doesn't appear to be utterly wrong or entirely redundant in the ways that would make WP:TNT useful. The mentioned Economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration does not appear particularly well-developed either. Have not analyzed the sources to see if there is a significant difference between the two article topics, but a quick WP:BEFORE leads me to agree the term is at the least a plausible redirect/link from a disambiguation page. CMD ( talk) 04:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Please can people stop moving the article while the AFD is open, as it screws up maintenance and closure scripts. Name discussions can wait until the AFD is closed (and probably should go on WP:RM as there's a lack of consensus...) Stifle ( talk) 09:51, 5 January 2024 (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.
- 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. Although the keep arguments are relatively weak, there is no delete support besides the nominator. I am not minded to relist for a third week. Stifle ( talk) 09:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Lima Consensus (economy)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lima Consensus (economy) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTESSAY. There is barely independent coverage of the term, which is mainly based on one coined by José Carlos Orihuela, of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru ( [1] [2] [3] [4]. There is no evidence that it is a term widely used by academics or that such a phenomenon exists at all. So much so that most of the results actually point to another thing: the Eighth Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean ( [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]). Any relevant content about Peru's economy in the 90s is already covered at Economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration. NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Politics, Economics, and Peru. NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources in the article, which use the term in English and Spanish, seem to indicate a fairly obvious claim to notability. It might be better titled Lima consensus, per MOS:CAPS but otherwise looks to meet GNG and I don't think the article is particularly poorly written as these things go. — Amakuru ( talk) 11:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- There is barely independent coverage about the term for it to meet WP:GNG, besides a few passing mentions. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 01:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion about behavior
|
|---|
|
- Keep -- I understand the nominator's point on the essay-like quality to the prose and I have some minor WP:SYNTH concerns, but those fall under WP:DINC. The sourcing seems (IMHO) to clear GNG based on both existing cites and a WP:BEFORE search. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 17:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 22:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:PROBLEM, WP:NOHURRY WP:PERFECTION, and WP:NOTPAPER. Ultranuevo ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bear in mind
WP:TNT. Any salvageable information can be merged into the aforementioned article. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
20:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also
WP:UCS and
Wikipedia:TOQ.
Ultranuevo (
talk)
20:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Both are essays on "ignoring all rules". Verifiability is still a pillar of the encyclopedia and the issue of what
Wikipedia is not remains. At any rate, if you cite WP:1Q, the natural question follows: how does this article precisely improve Wikipedia? The content on the economic policies is covered at
Economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration and there it's debatable if such "Consensus" exists at all. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
22:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which source claims that is debatable whether the term Lima consensus exists?
Ultranuevo (
talk)
23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say the term, I said the "Consensus" per se. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 23:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry. I don't know if I understood you, there are many sources that recognize the Lima consensus. If such consensus were not real, there would be no sources. Ultranuevo ( talk) 23:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which source claims that is debatable whether the term Lima consensus exists?
Ultranuevo (
talk)
23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Both are essays on "ignoring all rules". Verifiability is still a pillar of the encyclopedia and the issue of what
Wikipedia is not remains. At any rate, if you cite WP:1Q, the natural question follows: how does this article precisely improve Wikipedia? The content on the economic policies is covered at
Economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration and there it's debatable if such "Consensus" exists at all. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
22:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also
WP:UCS and
Wikipedia:TOQ.
Ultranuevo (
talk)
20:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bear in mind
WP:TNT. Any salvageable information can be merged into the aforementioned article. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
20:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Per the above -- 100kb costs 0.000..............1p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:89AA:CA00:680B:8D6C:3328:A26C ( talk) 19:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — 2A01:4B00:89AA:CA00:680B:8D6C:3328:A26C ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Article is essay-like, but it doesn't appear to be utterly wrong or entirely redundant in the ways that would make WP:TNT useful. The mentioned Economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration does not appear particularly well-developed either. Have not analyzed the sources to see if there is a significant difference between the two article topics, but a quick WP:BEFORE leads me to agree the term is at the least a plausible redirect/link from a disambiguation page. CMD ( talk) 04:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Please can people stop moving the article while the AFD is open, as it screws up maintenance and closure scripts. Name discussions can wait until the AFD is closed (and probably should go on WP:RM as there's a lack of consensus...) Stifle ( talk) 09:51, 5 January 2024 (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.