Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Incidental Economist

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. Sandstein 10:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Incidental Economist

If you came here because you followed this blog post rallying support to keep this article, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable blog. No reliable sources cited to establish notability. GregJackP (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a notable blog to me. The blog described has been cited by blogs or print editions of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, National Public Radio, Financial Times, The Atlantic, The New Republic, Business Week, Mother Jones, The Huffington Post, Politico, The Hill, and other publications and blogs of significance. See http://theincidentaleconomist.com/selected-citations/ for evidence, which is pasted below for convenience:

list of WP:EL collapsed for readability

Mark Thoma. (3/3/10). Links for 2010-03-02. Economist's View.

Brad DeLong. (3/3/10). Five things worth reading, mostly economics. Grasping Reality ...

Monica Potts. (2/16/10). Arguing against the facts. The American Prospect.

Jonathan Cohn. (2/16/10). Give me insurance or give me death. The New Republic.

Kate Steadman. (2/16/10). Debating whether health insurance saves lives. Kaiser Health News.

Matthew Yglesias. (2/16/10). Yes, health insurance saves lives. Think Progress.

Andrew Sullivan. (2/15/10). How many die for lack of insurance? Ctd. The Atlantic.

Brad DeLong. (2/15/10). At least a third of what we spend on health care is wasted--and we don't spend enough. Grasping Reality ...

Kevin Drum. (2/15/10). Is health insurance good for you? Mother Jones.

Ezra Klein. (2/15/10). When opinions on health-care insurance stop being polite and start getting complicated. The Washington Post.

Megan McArdle. (2/13/10). Firming up the argument. The Atlantic.

Tyler Cowen. (2/13/10). Health insurance and mortality follow-up. Marginal Revolution.

Andrew Sullivan. (2/12/10). How many die for lack of insurance? The Atlantic.

Matthew Yglesias. (2/12/10). Insurance status and mortality. Think Progress.

Megan McArdle. (2/12/10). What do "rightwingers" really think? The Atlantic.

Kevin Drum. (2/12/10). Quote of the day. Mother Jones.

Merrill Goozner. (2/11/10). Antitrust? Or anti-cost control? The Fiscal Times.

Ezra Klein. (2/10/10). Let's not make a deal. The Washington Post.

Kevin Drum. (2/8/10). Quick hits. Mother Jones.

David Lightman. (2/5/10). House to vote on stripping health insurers' antitrust protection. McClatchy Newspapers.

Nick Baumann. (2/4/10). The market for economics. Mother Jones.

Mark Thoma. (2/4/10). Is Austrianism serious? Economist's View.

Ezra Klein. (2/4/10). More mathbell! The Washington Post.

James Kwak. (2/3/10). The Republican plan, II: You're on your own. The Baseline Scenario.

Andrew Sullivan. (2/1/10). Pass. The. Damn. Bill. The Atlantic.

Ezra Klein. (2/1/10). Plan B is terrible. The Washington Post.

Igor Volsky. (1/20/10). Brownï¿½s victory wasnï¿½t a referendum on national health reform legislation. Think Progress.

Ezra Klein. (1/13/10). The Senate's awful free rider provision likely to survive negotiations. The Washington Post.

Kevin Drum. (1/13/10). Healthcare reform and cost control. Mother Jones.

Jonathan Cohn. (1/13/10). House not inclined to roll over, play dead. The New Republic.

Jonathan Chait. (1/12/10). Let me explain the Cadillac tax. The New Republic.

Andrew Sullivan. (1/12/10). Yes, those Medicare cuts can happen. The Atlantic.

Matthew Yglesias. (1/8/10). Health care and wages. Think Progress.

Kevin Drum. (1/8/10). Healthcare and wages. Mother Jones.

Ezra Klein. (1/8/10). The health-care and wages debate, continued! The Washington Post.

Igor Volsky. (12/29/09).Health care industry coordinating effort to opt states out of health care reform. Think Progress.

Matthew Yglesias. (12/29/09). Repeal can't happen, rollback can. Think Progress.

Jonathan Cohn. (12/29/09). The Kristol ball. The New Republic.

Ezra Klein. (12/22/09). Letters to health-care Santa: Bring the market to Medicare Advantage, and the House's employer mandate to the final bill. The Washington Post.

Kevin Drum. (12/22/09). Healthcare ping pong? Mother Jones.

Patrick Appel. (12/20/09). After reform. The Atlantic.

Kevin Drum. (12/20/09). Why 2014? Mother Jones.

Ezra Klein. (12/18/09). The 60th vote? The Washington Post.

Ezra Klein. (12/15/09). The political cost of failure. The Washington Post.

Gwen Robinson. (12/10/09). An economy of one's own. Financial Times.

Megan McArdle. (12/9/09). Medicare cost shifting: Does it happen, and how much? The Atlantic.

Kevin Drum. (12/9/09). Joe Lieberman is 21% right (and 79% wrong). Mother Jones.

Matthew Yglesias. (12/9/09). The phantom menace of cost-shifting. Think Progress.

Igor Volsky. (12/9/09). Would the Medicare buy-in hurt providers? Think Progress.

Jonathan Cohn. (11/25/09). Daily Treatment, giving thanks edition. The New Republic.

Andrew Sullivan. (11/24/09). Health Incentive Plans. The Atlantic.

Stephen Koff. (11/21/09). Senate bill would also cut Medicare Advantage but reductions would not be as deep as in House measure. The Plain Dealer.

Andrew Sullivan. (11/19/09). Cost control, cost control, cost control, ctd. The Atlantic.

Matthew Yglesias. (11/17/09). The next health reform debate. Think Progress.

Kevin Drum. (11/17/09). The Swiss system. Mother Jones.

Cathy Arnst. (11/2/09). U.S. medical prices highest in the world. Business Week.

Jonathan Cohn. (11/2/09). Daily Treatment, man bites dog edition. The New Republic.

Ezra Klein. (11/2/09). If Best Buy sold health care. The Washington Post.

Jonathan Cohn. (11/2/09). Why American health care is so expensive. The New Republic.

Kevin Drum. (11/2/09). The Frakt curve. Mother Jones.

Tyler Cowen. (10/31/09). How well will the public option work. Marginal Revolution.

Jonathan Cohn. (10/26/09). Daily Treatment, likes and dislikes. The New Republic.

Lisa Wangsness. (10/25/09). Fears of health monopoly as Congress urges collaboration. The Boston Globe.

David Welna. (10/23/09). Democrats push to end insurer's antitrust exemption. National Public Radio.

Jonathan Cohn. (10/21/09). Daily Treatment, biggest losers edition. The New Republic.

Esme Deprez. (10/19/09). Reviving an old threat in health-insurance battle. Business Week.

Uwe Reinhardt. (10/16/09). Is Medicare raising prices for the privately insured? The New York Times.

Andrew Sullivan. (10/16/09). From the dept. of careful what you wish for. The Atlantic.

Ezra Klein. (10/15/09). Another perspective on the antitrust exemption for the insurance industry. The Washington Post.

Ezra Klein. (10/15/09). The Medicare Advantage scam. The Washington Post.

Tyler Cowen. (10/15/09). Austin Frakt and Ian Crosby on the insurance antitrust exemption. Marginal Revolution.

Ezra Klein. (10/14/09). Putting hospitals on a diet. The Washington Post.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (10/14/09). Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: ï¿½Health Insurance Reform Will Lead to Medicare Benefit Cuts for Seniorsï¿½.

Kevin Drum. (10/13/09). Is cost shifting bogus? Mother Jones.

Timothy Stoltzfus Jost. (10/12/09). Health Care Arena. Politico.

Aaron Carroll. (10/8/09). Uniquely American? Or uniquely bad? The Huffington Post.

Ezra Klein. (10/7/09). The question of cost-shifting. The Washington Post. A

aron Carroll. (10/7/09). High risk pools. Rational Arguments.

Cliff Kuang. (10/6/09). How to become a design genius: Take time off. Lots of it. Fast Company.

Lea Winerman. (10/5/09). [Under Senate Finance Committee Plan, High-Risk Insurance Pools Get Funding Boost Under Senate Finance Committee plan, high-risk insurance pools get funding boost]. Online NewsHour.

Ezra Klein. (10/5/09). Health economist Austin Frakt dismantles the idea that the difference between what private insurers and public insurers pay represents "cost-shifting." The Washington Post.

Maggie Mahar. (10/1/09). Seniors would save far more than they lose. The Washington Post.

Jane Sasseen and Catherine Arnst. (10/1/09). Why business fears the public option. Business Week.

Thomas Greaney. (9/30/09). Health reform and Medicare: Part I. The Health Care Blog.

Terence Kane. (9/30/09). Senior-bating in healthcare debate. The Hill.

Andrew Sullivan. (9/30/09). 14 cents on the dollar. The Atlantic.

Aaron Carroll. (9/29/09). Why are we cutting Medicare Advantage? Rational Arguments.

Ezra Klein. (9/29/09). A wasteful program. The Washington Post.

Ezra Klein. (9/29/09). Is Medicare Advantage worth it? The Washington Post.

Kevin Drum. (9/28/09). Who benefits from Medicare Advantage? Mother Jones.

Maggie Mahar. (9/25/09). More on proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage. The Century Foundation.

Paul Krugman. (4/2/09). "The banks" versus "some banks." The New York Times.

NBERgal (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC) — NBERgal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Uh, just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it's not notable.--Rebel1916 (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as per nom. Put one blog in, especially a recent one as of 2009, and this will become a blog-asphere.--Morenooso (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have reviewed the entire list supplied by User:NBERgal (I know, I can't believe it either). In this whole list, "The Incidental Economist" is only mentioned in 9 links. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. However, it appears that the blog is quoted in some of the other links. I invite other editors to determine whether these links establish notability for the blog, as none of them actually discuss the blog itself outside of a "you might want to read this" type of note. I see a very compelling notability argument for the contributors to the blog (Austin Frakt, Ian Crosby and Steve Pizer), but am truly unsure if references that cite rather than discuss the blog amount to notability for this website. Steamroller Assault (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I really tried, I could build a website and/or blog and then ensure it gets noted or cited by others. Does that make me notable? Self-published sites or blogs are usually discouraged.--Morenooso (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually some of the citations by journalists do discuss the blog. One such citation has been quoted on the page itself. Moreover, it isn't only that the blog has been cited a lot (that's true of many blogs), but that it has been cited by many prominent journalists at notable institutions. NBERgal (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've never edited a Wikipedia page before, but I use Wikipedia a lot and have read many of the blog pages and the blogs they describe. I find those pages useful because they are a way for "the community" to describe the blog, which is different from the way the blog describes itself. The question of whether this blog should be included is an interesting one but very easy to resolve. It has proven its value in a broad community of journalists and academics (I'm one of the latter). To my mind that makes it as notable as any other already included in Wikipedia and more important than 99% of blogs on the internet. Frankly, I'm surprised this is even worthy of debate. The citation list provided here and on the blog itself clearly demonstrates value and import. Few would counter that except on the basis of overly narrow and rigid definitions. Perhaps it is those definitions that warrant re-evaluation.152.133.6.2 (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - FYI, The Incidental Economist is listed on the blogroll of Marginal Revolution (see Blogs We Like in left-hand column). It is also listed under the name "Austin Frakt" on The Daily Dish (see Blog Love in right-hand column, alphabetized by last name). Anyone familiar with the blogosphere will know that recognition on those two very prominent blogs is a high honor and confers a substantial amount of credibility. Wikigronk (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meets neither of the 3 criteria for being notable in WP:WEB. --Sbluen (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Being linked to in a blogroll is decided NOT a criterion. That said, I suspect there may be future notability here, and I wouldn't be surprised if this gets an article at some point, but not yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An example of a notable blog, as shown by its widespread citation. Just as that would establish the importance of a journal, so does it here. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 21 March 2010 (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.