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 Delete. I am willing to userfy this for anyone who wishes to improve it in order to have it moved to a neutral article name. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Recession (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View log)

...is not a term recognized by economists.

The recession was dated from March 2001 to November 2001 by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER),Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is the acknowledged organization that identifies and dates the recessions.

This recession officially started after Clinton had left office.

It is a term that has been used by some commentators with specific political orientation. While it is a good example of politically motivated interpretation of facts, it is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Chakreshsinghai (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The phrase clearly has some currency and so the article should be retained, even if it is just as a redirect. The current proposed merge target seems to have an inferior title. And a merge does not require deletion so the matter doesn't belong here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename. I didn't create the article in the first place, but I wrote most of the current content. I actually stumbled on the article, thinking it sounded like a biased name, but found a large number of sites using the term (9000 g-hits for "Clinton Recession"), from both left- and right-leaning points of view (the latter often rejecting it as a label, but their mention of it still implies that it was part of the discussion). ("Bush Recession" is also used, and receives more g-hits but many of them refer to an expected recession. The article mentions this name also and it redirects there.) But anyway, this article is not principally about the recession itself (the economic facts of which are covered in the Early 2000s recession), but about the dating controversy which occurred a few years later, which was seen as an attempt to blame the recession on Clinton. This was widely reported, as cited in the references, and seems worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The terms Clinton Recession and Bush Recession are not used by economists, it's true, but then Wikipedia's readers are not limited to economists and they seem to have been widely used in political discourse. However, if there is concern that having the title (if not the content) imply that it was a "Clinton Recession" (or "Bush Recession"), we could rename it Early 2000s United States recession dating controversy or the like, if that's deemed not too cumbersome. The material could also be merged into the Early 2000s recession article, although I think that is a less good choice, since the article includes the economic data for much of the world, and details about a political controversy that took place after the recession was concluded seems straying a bit from the topic. Rigadoun (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Renaming it a "controversy", perhaps Early 2000s United States recession dating controversy would address my main concern. That is what the article is currently about, it is not really about recession as a topic in economics.

The terms like "Victorian furniture" and "Ming vases" describe things that happened during the named administration. Thus using the name of an administration is generally about naming the period.

For those interested in politics, I found 25,600 hits for "Bush recession" and only 8,830 for "Clinton recession"!

--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early 2000s United States recession dating controversy sounds an awful lot like Early 2000s recession#Dating controversy in the United States. Might be a good reason to merge it into Early 2000s recession... -- mordel (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - politically biased article bandying a term that was not used during the time of the recession and is used now only by rightwing bloggers and rightwing publications. The topic is already discussed under Early 2000s recession and does not warrant a second article. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any worthwhile content with “Early 2000s recession”, then delete without redirect. WP:NPOV. —SlamDiego_←T 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: My position on the article itself notwithstanding, I object to the description “not a term recognized by economists”. Which economists? Economists do not operate with a hive mind. —SlamDiego_←T 21:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV article with a political slant. Calling a recession which occurred while Bush was in office the "Clinton" recession is impermissable when that is not the usage by respected economists. Edison (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Referring to “respected economists” isn't much of an improvement on Chakreshsinghai's bare reference to “economists”. The case against this article can be made without pretending that there is unanimity amongst economist in general, or amongst economists who don't blow their noses with their fingers. —SlamDiego_←T 05:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Might be worth a mention in Early 2000s recession, but not as a stand-alone article. Does not appear to be in widespread usage. No redirect seems necessary. Torc2 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any worthwhile content with “Early 2000s recession”, then delete without redirect, changing incoming links to point to “Early 2000s recession” WP:NPOV. I proposed a merger just prior to PROD nomination but didn't take the time then to actually merge content. mordel (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternately, I would be happy with rename and expansion. It needs more context to place the issue, and more verifiable and varied sources and commentary. mordel (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - For what it's worth, this article seems like it would go well with the Early 2000s recession article. FWIW, I think a good article would merge the naming controversy with the actual numbers provided in the other. Also, I think it would need to present both the pro-Clinton and pro-Bush arguments to be effective.Werecowmoo (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - neologism; there have been recessions in all presidencies and mostly coincidences. Possibly politically inspired page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism and possibly politically motivated attack page. Even if kept, a more neutral title can surely be found. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:46, 17 February 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.