RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Log

Articles for Deletion main page

Balanced Budget Amendment | Result: ?

Balanced Budget Amendment (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. I think this article is beyond redemption. It has only three sources, all of them are dead, and IMO that’s enough for a deletion (as I said before, IMO unsourced articles articles should be killed on sight). But the content of the article is also grossly inaccurate. First, it presents expenditure ceilings as a fringe idea. Nothing closer from the truth. According to the IMF, dozens of countries have this sort of fiscal frameworks,[1] and they seem to work just fine. If anything, the American debt ceiling is uncommon (IIRC it only exists in Denmark. But that’s not even the main problem of the article.
   

   Graph representing the liquidity trap on a IS-LM model.
   According to the author, a balance budget amendment would strip the government from the tools that are needed to fight recessions. That’s not true for many reasons. I believe that most economists today see monetary policy as a more efficient way to counter economic cycles than fiscal policy, but let’s suppose now that the US is in a liquidity trap, a situation where fiscal policy works very well (though many see it as another Laffer Curve, a theoretical curiosity with no empirical validation). Most, if not all the countries that adopt this kind of fiscal rule admit exceptions for recessions, as well as natural catastrophes and emergencies. I’m not 100% sure, but I think back then, during the Great Recession, many countries with expenditure ceilings didn’t have, in fact rules for exceptions for their ceillings. But this was fixed, as we could see in the pandemic, where countries spend a lot. Now, do I support this amendment? I’m inclined to say no because I prefer synthetic constitutions with abstract rules. But this article, despite being just a stub, is just too bad for main space. And why don’t you fix it then, Gee? Because I don’t have time, and quite frankly, I don’t think we need an article on the subject, so even if the article was a little bit better, I'd still support deleting it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
2. I don't see how the article, as presently written, is anywhere close to being missional. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Too stubby ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
4. It is a bit of mess this article , inaccurate it appears also. Delete Qwepoi (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
5. I did have a look over this article to try and add some value but i think it is a total minefield, get rid. Edit0r (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Goat

1. I won't pretend to know anything about the subject in question, but what would the material costs of a "balanced budget amendment" be? Like, what programs would be slashed if such a budget was passed, if any? Given that there is a tendency for "fiscal responsibility" measures to target programs that benefit the working class or are detrimental to the interests of plutocracy, I think my question is a reasonable one, unless I'm totally off the mark. Carthage (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Traditional values | Result: ?

Traditional values (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Just a collection of bullet points and unfunny snark with very little context and no references. Derivative of Good old days and Family values. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Our page on Tradition is summoning most of this page aswell. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Supremely unfunny and I have no idea why a defunct New Zealand environmentalist party is in the article. A somebody. (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Not remotely funny , lacks reference also , bin. Teriyaki12 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
5. Delete this article , lacks any relevance.DecemberRebmeced (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep

1. There probably is a line to be drawn between "traditional values" and "family values", though I'm not sure if conservatives who abuse the terms would bother. In any case, yeah, this page could use some more improvements. Luigifan18 (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
2. I like it. I want to keep it. It’s rationale. New world (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Appeal to tradition, put in redirect. The latter could do with some work too. But as usual with me, the original page must remain until this is done right. So consider this in a straight Delete/Keep fight as a vote for Keep [for now]. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
2. I second the motion to merge and redirect. It does seem to me like there are certain parts of this article could be salvaged, if properly cleaned up with some spit and polish. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 20:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Merge with tradition Ioe bidome (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Merge and redirect to Appeal to Tradition. FriendlySocDem (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Goat

I've removed the snark that was added today, unfortunately quality edits added alongside the snark were removed. Ioe bidome (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)