Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaldor's Growth Model


 * 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 keep. Rlendog (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Kaldor's Growth Model

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested redirect - no indications of notability or separate importance. No need for a separate article - content can be incorporated into Nicholas Kaldor. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think Kaldor's growth model is notable and deserving of an article. This article is new and being worked on. I think the editor might just need some help. Evidence of notability is from academic articles on the topic eg Nancy J. Wulwick (1992). Kaldor's Growth Theory. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 14, pp 36-54 doi:10.1017/S1053837200004387 and others which might be found here . This was formerly a standard topic in less mainstream economics courses on growth. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Click the Google Book search at the top of the AFD. Lot of books about economics talk about this.  Not sure if textbooks do, and if its taught in classes, but it seems notable.  No sense shoving those two articles together, nor the other two articles either: Kaldor's facts and Kaldor's growth laws.   D r e a m Focus  00:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim to notability, lots of mentions but not seeing detailed coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How are academic papers about this specific subject, as found in the Google Scholar search linked above, not detailed coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the results of the Google Scholar search linked in the nomination and by Msrasnw, including many papers specifically devoted to this topic: . Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 15 September 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.