Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lima Consensus

Lima Consensus

Lima Consensus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article is a pretty clear WP:POVFORK of the article in question based on the idea of a "the system of free-market policies that Peruvian elites promoted". This seems to get little coverage that separates this from general support for neoliberalism in Peru. There isn't anything really special about elites/vs normal people supporting neoliberalism beyond it sounding catchy. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose: Thanks again for opening this discussion and informing me, Allan. I appreciate you taking the time to give the community a space to talk about the future of this article.

  However, a merge should not happen and the articles should remain independent for two reasons:

  1. The Lima Consensus ≠ Neoliberalism in Peru.
  2. Technical reasons

  Firstly, in a scholarly journal article on the Lima Consensus, it's explained that elites in Peru have long influenced the government not to intervene in their economic affairs and when Alberto Fujimori took office, a consensus was made that a neoliberal economy was the direction to take in order to formally prevent state intervention in the future. CNN explains this, saying "The term Lima Consensus, after the Peruvian capital, was coined to describe the system of free-market policies that Peruvian elites promoted to fuel the economic boom." The Lima Consensus is the impetus of neoliberalism in Peru and is not neoliberalism in Peru itself. Think of the Lima Consensus being like the United States Declaration of Independence while neoliberalism in Peru is the Government of the United States; one was what brought the other. I would compare it to a constitution, but the 1993 Constitution of Peru is what formalized neoliberalism in Peru. Today, the Lima Consensus and the use of its term is so important that in the Peru country risk report by Fitch Solutions, they use it by name to specifically explain the status of the system to interested foreign investors.

  Secondly, this merge should also not happen for technical reasons. The neoliberalism in Peru article was poorly translated (there is still Spanish language text in the article's body) and it is a whopping 400,000 bytes. Cramming in another article into an already bloated article would be a bad idea for readers as it would be difficult to read due to its length and may result in loading issues with the size of its memory.

  Overall, for the reasons outlined above, an article discussing the Lima Consensus independently from the topic of neoliberalism in Peru is necessary as they are unique from one another. WMrapids (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  At least on the technical grounds, I can say one of the reasons I would support a merge is to bring some of the content from here to replace content on that article. Yes, that article needs improvement, but it is firstly, a much better starting place, and secondly could use some of the content here to replace content there. On the nontechnical grounds, I do feel like the argument is rather weak. If you have to reach for metaphors to explain the distinction here, than it does seem likely rather a tenuous case of distinction. Allan Nonymous (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree that the Lima Consensus ≠ Neoliberalism in Peru so a merge may result in WP:TOOBIG. They are two related topics but they aren't the same. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that subjects do not have to be identical to justify a merger, per WP:MERGEREASON. Most merged articles are about related subjects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:19, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite. In its current state, I agree that the article reads like a poorly written WP:POVFORK of Neoliberalism in Peru. However, the solution to a badly written article about an independently notable topic is to fix it, not to merge it out of existence.

From what I see, the core issue here is a conflation of two distinct concepts:

• Neoliberalism in Peru is the broad macroeconomic history of the country since 1990 (the Fujishock, privatization, tariff reductions, the commodities boom, etc.).
• The Lima Consensus is a specific political science and institutional concept coined by Harvard political scientist Steven Levitsky. It does not simply mean "neoliberalism." Rather, it describes the political paradox of Peru: the institutional pact, the technocratic insulation of the Peruvian Central Bank and Ministry of Economy, and the elite veto power that forces the continuity of the economic model regardless of whether a right-wing, centrist, or radical left-wing president (like Humala or Castillo) is democratically elected. In other words, it is the study of the democratic isolation of Peru's economic model.

Merging a very specific political science theory about state capture and democratic deficit into a massive, 400,000-byte article about general economic history will completely bury the concept. Just as Washington Consensus has its own article distinct from Neoliberalism, the Lima Consensus warrants its own space.

Also, this is not just a journalistic buzzword. It is a formalized concept analyzed in peer-reviewed political science and sociology literature. For example:

• José Carlos Orihuela's paper "El consenso de Lima y sus descontentos: del restringido desarrollismo oligarca a revolucionarias reformas estructurales".
• Eduardo Dargent's analysis of the concept in his book El páramo reformista.
• Levitsky's own academic works on the paradoxes of Peruvian democracy.

The article should be kept, stripped of the redundant history, and rewritten to focus strictly on the institutional theory, and the scholarly debate and the analysis surrounding Steven Levitsky's coinage. SilentHalo (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2026 (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.