Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saltwater school (economics)

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. — Aitias // discussion 16:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater school (economics)[edit]

The article is based on a dated neologism that never took off. The google test of "saltwater school" and "economics" only generates 281 hits [1], and most of these are to Wikipedia and its mirrors. The term basically means "the thought of those economic schools that aren't Chicago," which isn't really an encyclopedic topic. At most, the phrase should be mentioned in the Chicago School article. Bkwillwm (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being "that guy", I've heard it around the office a fair bit, though I am at a loss to come up with a source which would cover the subject in depth. I'm sure one is out there. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Describes a valid term in use as shorthand by important people in the field, as exemplified by its use by Kling and in Warsh's book. HeureusementIci (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'I've seen it used in some books and articles which do not, for whatever reason, seem to show up in GScholar and GBooks. I recall David Colander saying that there's empirical evidence behind the division. The fact that one of the sources in this article is from 2006 suggests that it's not completely dead. Yes, it could be merged, but there are people who are going to search for this and want just an entry which explains what it is. Merging is a bit inelegant. II | (t - c) 21:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actual uses of the term are pretty sparse, and the few I've found all are in regard to the Chicago School. Considering the term is meaningless outside the context of the Chicago School, I don't see how this warrants it's own article. Right now the article is a stub, and I don't see how it could be much more. Considering "saltwater economics" covers all economics schools of thought in the US besides Chicago, the article would have to cover an unnecessarily broad range of topics that are joined pretty much by the fact that they aren't Chicago. If any unifying distinction can be made, it's that Chicago is strictly rational economics while other schools cover irrational behavior. This fact can be covered in economics rationality related articles (perfect rationality) and the Chicago School article. It really isn't a subject capable of standing on its own. Main point though: The phrase is hardly ever used. As you noted, it doesn't turn up much in Google searches. I searched NBER, and it doesn't turn up at all. In the few references in the article, the terminology isn't even consistent: While there is "saltwater," the opposition is variously termed "sweetwater" or "freshwater."

Aside from the lack of a positive reason to include this article, there are negatives. First, we'd be stuck with a perpetual stub. Also, the term might be confusing to readers who click on the link in a list or category of economic schools of thought and think they are getting an article on an actual, independent school of thought. Really, they are just getting an article for a phrase that encompasses all US schools with the exception of one. I think it would be best if we have a redirect to the Chicago article and discuss the phrase there. This way anybody searching for "saltwater school" would find an appropriate discussion of the phrase, but we wouldn't have to deal with a confusing stub.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of schools that this doesn't encompass. They are called heterodox. There are also a lot of perpetual stubs on Wikipedia. That's fine if the topics are notable. I don't want to see Saltwater school popping up randomly in rationality pages. It wouldn't flow. II | (t - c) 04:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have actually never heard this term used, and prod'd it a little while ago. So I was going to strongly recommend deletion before I reexamined the situation. The two sources—recently added—convince me that this is probably a topic worth keeping. It is noteworthy when we have economists like Paul Krugman and Arnold Kling using the term. Last, Bkwillwm's arguments for deletion don't have me convinced. There are solutions to issues like perpetual stubness that are superior to deletion. Oh, and props to Protonk for being "that guy" :) -FrankTobia (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2008 (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.