Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrastructure and 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. No arguments fro deletion, including from the nominator. AfD is not the place to propose a merge.Michig (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure and economics

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

While a number of the article splits @Hendrick 99: accomplished yesterday are fine, I propose to merge this rather artificial topic back to Infrastructure.
The introductory sentence says it all: "This article delineates the relationship between infrastructure and various economic issues." Indeed it isn't a coherent subject and therefore prone to remain an orphan article forever. Also, sub-sections refer to engineering and to the environment respectively, and therefore certainly don't belong here. And finally, all infrastructure is closely related to economics by definition.
So other ways of splitting the original article may be considered, but this way is inappropriate. PanchoS (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article is to relieve the page Infrastructure, which was over-crowded, and full of information that is better covered in this format. Furthermore, don't use inflammatory words like 'artificial. It's not an artificial topic, but it's not worth putting in the infrastructure article either, as it's way too off-topic for that. KEEP this article.Hendrick 99 (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hendrick 99: I understand very well what the purpose of this article is, and sensible splitting of longish articles is perfectly fine. But there are always many possible ways to split a page, and this particular way seems inappropriate. No matter how you want to put it: the title definitively is artificial and "the relationship between infrastructure and various economic issues" is arbitrary. Even more, as the title already suggests (see WP:AND), this attempt at compiling the more economic aspects of infrastructure, constitutes WP:OR. And as I already stated, the conceptualization is just wrong. If we had an scholarly referenced article on "Economics of Infrastructure" or "Infrastructure in finance" that might work out, but would in any case require far more than just renaming the article. Again: let's merge this back and then discuss possible splits on Talk:Infrastructure. --PanchoS (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want, I'm not going to stop you, I couldn't if I tried. On Wikipedia, idiocy always prevails.Hendrick 99 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that was a bit overly-raged. I see your point PanchoS, and lets try and fix this without arguing. I still think something needs to be done about this ridiculously long set of content, and perhaps the content of this specific split is just absolutely useless. I think it might be best to remove it from wikipedia altogether. Cheers! Hendrick 99 (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and possibility split. There is notable information here, that is perhaps too detailed for overview of infrastructure. However, the title is wrong in that its ambiguous - it tells you that the article is about two subjects but not the way they relate. A possible solution would be to split it into two articles along the lines of Infrastructure finance and Economic impact of infrastructure - there are already a number articles/redirects that being with Economic impact of .... Jonpatterns (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2015 (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.