Talk:Trussonomics

• Wait. If it becomes a niche idea which gains traction in the future only with a small minority, like Communism in the United States, then I could see for a merger. Her tenure was short, but it's best sought that we wait this out before we perform what seems to be a WP:CRYSTALBALL merge. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree Wait - this merge sounds WP:CRYSTALBALL-y Newystats (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The policies could continue under the next PM. DecafPotato (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It's an American idea see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics, Voodoo economics (George Bush Snr's description of Reaganomics) redriects to Reaganomics 90.250.8.34 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support merge. It seems there are a LOT of stub articles being brought into question for mergers after the announcement of Truss's resignation, and I believe this should be merged either to Liz Truss#Economics, or Premiership of Liz Truss. I'm personally as to where it should be targeted. DecafPotato (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'm switching this to a weak oppose per @Narky Blert. The article's current state isn't great, but upon further consideration it seems to be a case of WP:NEXIST. DecafPotato (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

For the record, if this does end up being merged, I have a *strong opposition to Liz Truss being the target. The article on her Premiership, the Government Crisis, the Mini-budget, or the Economy of the UK article all work better. Despite the name, these policies are beyond Truss's reach, and will likely continue under the new PM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DecafPotato (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The article as I created it has 7 references, from 3 different (and major) English-language newspapers, all from the first page of a Google search. All 7 include "Trussonomics" in their titles. It wasn't Liz Truss who knocked 4% off the value of the pound within about 4 hours (definitely a significant impact on the UK's economy) - it was Trussonomics, as proposed to be implemented by Kwasi Kwarteng, which resulted in first his and then her downfall.

Google hits aren't everything, but there are 1.7M of them. A quick search easily turned up several articles in French, as just one language other than English, specifically about Trussonomics (1, 2, 3).

There's nothing wrong with WP:PERMASTUBs. The test is whether WP:N is met. Narky Blert (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support merge. Considering her tenure, there's not anything more to add, is there? This is a brief buzzword for a brief tenure. Holidayruin (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per @Narky Blert and @DecafPotato. While I agree this article is short and should be expanded, the subject is notable enough - and has enough quality suitable sources per WP:NEXIST - to warrant having its own page. Although Liz Truss is set to become the shortest serving Prime Minister in UK history, "Trussonomics" has already had a significant impact on the British economy and will likely continue to impact the UK even after Truss leaves office (see https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/18/trussonomics-is-dead-but-it-could-still-cause-long-term-damage.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willsteve2000 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Changing my vote to strong oppose. I still agree with my previous comment, but would like to add that the page has been greatly expanded since many users here cast their votes, and, as such, the main reasoning behind the proposed merger, that being that the "article is a stub" and is "likely to remain a permastub [that] should instead be merged into the main article", is no longer the case. Willsteve2000 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose target this should not point to Liz Truss. *Alternative it should merge to either Premiership of Liz Truss or September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget. It is specifically linked to her premiership and its downfall, and is implemented in the budget. -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge Less than two months in the premiership. Hardly worth a whole article than no one will visit in a year. TheFinalCountdownByEurope (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge Given the short time of service by Truss, it seems appropriate to merge the article with Liz Truss#Economics. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge because of short time of service. Hamid Hassani (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge sourcing isn’t everything; her time in office was microscopically short so this is the definition of “no long term impact/notability on its own”. In general I think fads should not receive independent articles even though they frequently do. Dronebogus (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge – hardly notable, permastub, going nowhere (much like Truss's career) – get it merged! Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Merge to the Truss article section. I've also merged a version of it to supply side economics, where it is also relevant. — The Anome (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• I would either wait until the article is expanded upon (if it would even be expanded) then decide whether to merge or change target per what IP 65.92.247.226 said, but I wouldn't support moving into the article about Liz Truss herself. This is one of her economical policies which should be noted under the premiership article in my opinion. SBS6577P (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Merge hardly notable enough to warrant its own article imo. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'll add I am also ok with this being merged into a section like "Economic policy" of Premiership of Liz Truss. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

*Merge with 2022 mini-budget it is far more important over there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2006toyotacorrola (talk • contribs) 10:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• i'm switching to oppose as it's not specific to truss, it just carries her name2006toyotacorrola (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Merge, because it is characteristic of her long-running ideological standpoint, as set out in Britannia Unchained, which she co-authored with Kwarteng and others. (And maybe "2022 mini-budget" (or Special Budgetary Operation) should be moved there too?) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Merge - given her short tenure and inability to put any of her theories into practice, this term will not have longevity and the policies can easily be accommodated within the article about her. Neiltonks (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge per above. A neologism which is doomed to have a short shelf life due to Truss' extraordinarily short term. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is a strange line of thinking; "doomed to have a short shelf life" sounds WP:CRYSTALBALL-y, we don't know how the policies will end up, and the policies themselves, while they have Truss as a namesake, could easily be continued. We should avoid a merge until we can see how this ends up. DecafPotato (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Merge Agreed, it is better used when talking about her minibudget Mogar101 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Merge with 2022 mini-budget and/or with Premiership of Liz Truss, it is a neologism but really doesn't have much to do with her personally except at most a sentence on her article. Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Propose merge with another article. The concept of Trussonomics has more to do with Truss's governance than her personal biography. It should be merged with the Premiership of Liz Truss page (at Premiership of Liz Truss) ^[1]. Moreover, a merger of the October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis ^[2] has also been suggested with the Premiership page. Indent2239 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Indent2239
• Merge with Liz Truss because, really, this article has little chance of expansion given that Trussonomics is totally discredited and unlikely to be carried forward by anyone. It's worth a mention in her article though, and is covered briefly in the mini-budget article. This is Paul (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge Given Trussonomics is essentially reheated Reaganomics, and given Truss' extremely short tenure as PM, it is unlikely an article solely about her economic policy will have enough detail as a stand-alone topic. gbrading (ταlκ) 15:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose merging to Liz Truss, should go to Premiership of Liz Truss. *5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Merge with Liz Truss and add some information into Premiership of Liz Truss. Trussonomics is a Lidl's version of Thatcherism and does not warrant its own article for such a short copy – as indeed other users have emphasized. Ecpiandy (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel that a short article describing what has been an incredibly consequential economic policy (crashing the pound and sending the UK spiraling into a deep recession- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/17/goldman-sachs-expects-worse-uk-recession-in-2023) is better. I think Trussonomics was also held up by Kwarteng, and that putting it entirely in her article undermines shared responsibility among the Tory party. It's a complex and very consequential thing rather than an aspect of her life. 219.88.180.48 (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Just because she had a short tenure does not diminish the impact of Trussonomics: perhaps a merger will be appropriate at some point, but this feels too soon. Criticalus (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Due to the brevity of Truss's premiership, it makes sense to merge the Trussonomics article into hers, per nom. I also support merging every article involving Truss, with the exception of the Premiership of Liz Truss article, into Liz Truss for the same reason. JTZegers (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't some of those article merge into "Premiership of Liz Truss" instead of "Liz Truss"? It wouldn't make sense to merge everything to Liz Truss, if they are concerning her premiership, which would be the more logical merge target -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just because she was PM for a short time does not make this less notable. Merging this in to Truss article means losing a lot of useful information.BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Due to the brevity of Truss's premiership. --Bduke (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose merge or wait. This article is not a stub, it appears there is reliably sourced content that is encyclopedic. Merging it to Liz Truss would require us to trim that content unnecessarily. Rather, as per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we should leave a summary of this article at the parent one, and let this article expand as necessary.VR _talk 01:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The length of her term does not really matter. If the article is sourced and well written it can remain, unless it is a duplicate and the information is already covered somewhere else, but I don't see that being mentioned here. So either the article needs to be kept or properly merged somewhere in its entirety so that information is not lost. Keivan.f^Talk 22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This article has substantial content with enough to merit it's own page. Merging would greatly extend the Liz Truss article by too much. -- Cosmic (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose While it's named for Truss, the article makes it clear that it's not solely her idea, nor does it necessarily disappear with the end of her premiership. As such I think it can be retained as a separate article. JeffUK (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Insignificant enough a role within government to have a term coined after her to have an entire page devoted to it. --volatileacid (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge to Liz Truss and Premiership of Liz Truss. September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget also covers this topic. This simply isn't an established enough topic to warrant another separate article, and most of the content is irrelevant background and duplication. Above someone says "the article makes it clear that it's not solely her idea", but the premiership and mini-budget articles also make clear that she's not the only person involved. Another commenter says "describing what has been an incredibly consequential economic policy" but again, the mini-budget article describes crashing the pound, so this is a weak argument. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support merging into Premiership of Liz Truss, Liz Truss, and mini-budget; the article's contents directly match what can be included in Truss's main page. There is also not enough substantial info here to warrant its own article, in my opinion contrary to some editors above. Also, sections such as 'future' and 'criticism', lots of these sources never reference 'trussonomics' but rather individual proposals in the mini-budget -'Trussonomics' is not the name for trickle-down or other proposals she set out.Yeoutie (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge the Trussonomics article is pure WP:RECENTISM; it seems that there's a lot to say at the moment because of the hysterical nature of the media providing sources upon sources. By this time next year, it'll seem like nothing importance. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge I agree this likely to remain a permastub, and should instead be merged into the main article. Trussonomics is little more than an undeveloped and unrealised vision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukewarmbeer (talk • contribs) 08:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Lukewarmbeer "a permastub"? Have you read the article? While it was a stub when the merge was proposed, it's state now is that of a longer article, with well-sourced and encyclopedic content. Independent of your views to merge the article due to it being an "unrealized vision", you should accurately reflect the state of the article in your decision. DecafPotato (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. You are absolutely correct of course. When I first looked I didn't have time to add to this talk but made a note to. I didn't check again when I returned and commented. I appreciate the heads up to my error.

  Having read the article as it is today I would still be inclined to merge it. In its entirety Trussonomics, as with her premiership, is barely a footnote in history. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the content, if a merger takes place, might also find a home at September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget if not already mentioned there. I do not think that I recommend immediate deletion of the article, but rather, I think I'd recommend turning it into a redirect without deletion of its edit history so that editors can see what information had existed in this article in order to inform edits elsewhere. SecretName101 (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support merge Given the record-breaking brevity of the office junior's spell in office, I cannot see how the Trussonomics article is likely to gain any more significant coverage, and feel that a merge to the section on her economic policy is wholly appropriate.TheLongTone (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Trussonomics is the main reason for her downfall, if it were merged to have all the information in the article the section would be overlong: besides, it's not a stub article anymore. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Keep them separate so people can actually read about it instead of bogging down a single section with it. Trillfendi (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support merge, this article could use with some copy editing as well, but also does not need its own stand alone article, but would better serve the reader as a blurb on the economics page in the best section deemed best.