Talk:Claudia Sahm

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Ms. Sahm is a notable economist in a non-trivial public service position. Further, the existence of her recession indicator creates a de-facto notoriety. Any student of economics, whether formal or informal, would have a natural interest in learning more about the researcher behind “The Sahm Rule”. --172.58.30.159 (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The article should be retained. However, the comment about her favoring "diversity" should be fleshed out. Most people who say they favor diversity tend to be scared of true diversity, which is ideational and experiential. Only a narrow definition of "diversity" would see it as genetic accidents such as gender or melanin content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Senior member of CEA, Fed Reserve section chief immediately make this specious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.11 (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Twitter people

If you're here because of something you read on Twitter, stand down: this article is NO danger of being deleted. Speedy deletions happen only under VERY narrow criteria -- if an article is gibberish, libelous, or blatant spam, etc. -- and deletions can ONLY be done by those with system administrator privileges (Admins). And trust me, they're not going to let that happen. --Calton | Talk 18:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

New job, unclear

...Sahm is a senior fellow, guaranteed income, at the Jain Family Institute.

This sentence makes no sense. Reading the second citation, https://www.jainfamilyinstitute.org/about-us/, I see "Senior Fellow, Guaranteed Income" as a title, but it makes little sense just plopped in the sentence. Can we say "senior fellow in the area of guaranteed income", or is that too much editorializing?

I changed it to say she's researching guaranteed income. No editorializing as that's what she's doing. Citing (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion

Extended content

I recently added a proposal for deletion, which was removed by user EAWH, citing the previous discussion on the talk page. Quoting from that previous discussion, it says “Ms. Sahm is a notable economist in a non-trivial public service position”, neither of these claims were true then, nor are they true now. This person is not a notable economist by any stretch of the imagination. There are thousands of economists working for the Federal Reserve system, and even more working for think tanks in the US. If you add in central banks and think tanks around the world, it would become obvious they are not a “notable economist.” This is even without considering the 1000s of economists working in industry, whether in technology or finance. The whole notion of non trivial position for this person is completely unqualified. Unless of course all economists working at Federal reserve systems or Central banks elsewhere or think tanks or consulting firms or …. deserve Wikipedia pages. The truth is they don’t. And neither does this person. Only reason this page has been created is for self promotion. Now, on the subject of the “Sahm rule”, the less said the better. Claiming that the so called “Sahm rule” is some sort of indicator used by economists to evaluate when recessions begin is laughable to say the least. Claiming that the “Sahm rule” and the “creator of the Sahm rule” should have a Wikipedia page, is like saying anyone who has ever published a policy report, not even an economics paper, where they defined a new variable, and used it to make some claims, need to have Wikipedia pages. I recently wrote a paper where I defined a new Doubly robust Diff in Diff estimator, and used it for analysis. Where is my Wikipedia page and eponymous rule? All this laughable self promotion and it is incredible to see that pages like these haven’t been deleted earlier. 2601:240:C400:E0E0:A522:D2F9:C453:45B4 (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Mrs Sahm has many enemies. In fact one might almost say that she is notable for the number of enemies that she has. Although I am not an economist, I have heard of her and of the Sahm rule, and was interested enough to search for more information on both. If she did not have a Wikipedia page I would be inclined to create one for her on that basis alone. Calls for the page's speedy deletion will be removed. EAWH did the right thing. -- Derek Ross | Talk The article also says she has pushed for more "diversity," presumably meaning genetic accidents such as melanin content and gender. However, genuine diversity is ideational and experiential, and it consists of tolerating different ideas and opinions than your own. Thus, most people who say they favor "diversity" tend to flee from (or censor out) any new idea or opinion at variance from their own ideas/opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)