Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expenditure incidence

:{{la|Expenditure incidence}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Expenditure incidence}})

Article that gives no indication as to what it is trying to convey, has no context. Mtking (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The name is jargon, and not very common either. The sole reference is to a non-notable World Bank publication which is also very light on explanation and very heavy on jargon. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

::On second thoughts, Redirect to Fiscal incidence. Philosophically, Colonel Warden (below) is actually correct in the sense that the concept is interesting and notable. The problem with this article is that the title is bad and the content doesn't say much. Which doesn't leave anything worth merging. It would be better to develop the Fiscal incidence article. I would actually like a better title for that but I can't think of a short enough one. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:GNG. No meaningful context. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The concept has great notability as a book search immediately indicates. The current poor state of the article is not a reason to delete - please see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of substantive coverage, no sources in article, just a small amount of incomprehensible jargon. That it is WP:IMPERFECT (which is just one section of WP:Editing policy) is the least of its problems -- there is the fact that it is in pervasive violation of WP:V & WP:NOR -- and last I checked that is "a reason to delete". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Tell us why WP:NOT#DICTIONARY does not apply to this rather thin and, to me, rather vague article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

:* WP:NOT#DICTIONARY states "If possible, articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content.". Please explain how this is an argument for deletion.

• Comment I have expanded the article from the source provided and some of the other similar sources. The above objections are now all obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

::I still believe that this should be re-directed to Fiscal incidence which includes Expenditure incidence as one of its three sub-topics. It would be better to develop this subject there and only split it out if and when that article becomes unwieldy. I really don't see why this has to be a separate article when Expenditure incidence, Taxation incidence and Benefits incidence are so intertwined in the literature. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: the recent additions appear to be a small and scattershot collection of loosely connected factoids (WP:INDISCRIMINATE?), the largest of which appears to be more than a little WP:HOWTO. It does not amount to a coherent exposition of the subject (even at a stub level), which may, as Dingo1729 suggests, be better explained as part of Fiscal incidence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Google news archive search only gives five results, while Google book search gives 1,710, and Google scholar gives 675. Looking through the first two pages of results for Google books, I find that some of those results refer to this concept clearly. It does exist, and it does get discussed, it clearly a notable aspect of understanding finances. Dream Focus 23:13, 3 May 2011 (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.