Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Review of Keynesian Economics


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of Keynesian Economics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable relatively new journal, article creation premature. Only index listed is RePEc, which strives to include all publications in economics.Note that the "impact factor" mentioned in the article is calculated by RePEc, not the usual Thomson Reuters IF. Article dePRODded and created by COI editor. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Coverage in reliable sources at this point is sparse and superficial, and don't significantly discuss the journal itself. Perhaps down the road. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete – Most hits in Google seem to be from economics blogs. They are serious blogs, but still blogs. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Being easily influenced, I am changing my !vote per Randykitty. My impression of the Google hits remains the same, but academic journals is one area where we have well defined and well functioning standards. We should follow them. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It turns out that the journal is included in the Social Sciences Citation Index and Current Contents. Given its age (and, frankly, the rather promotional way in which the article was written) I thought it practically impossible that this would be the case and did not check Thomson Reuters. My bad... I was wrong. I have changed my !vote to "keep", but given that there are two delete !votes, I cannot at this point withdraw the nom. I have cleaned up the article to reflect the foregoing and to remove the promotional stuff. --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: Of note is that the nominator has withdrawn, and has !voted to keep in the discussion.
 * Delete having the tables of contents mechanically distributed by third parties with a financial interest does not count as in-depth coverage in a reliable source. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use common sense to improve the encyclopedia). This is a double-blind juried academic journal — the pillar of so-called "reliable sources" at Wikipedia. As content is apt to be cited to this and similar sources in our footnotes, we need to provide our readers with as much detail as possible on the nature of the journals being cited. Therefore, the needs of our readers should trump any ephemeral notability concerns related to this journal's comparative newness, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There is absolutely no need for IAR (which all too often is invoked to keep non-notable stuff). There are many peer-reviewed and double peer-reviewed academic journals that never should get an article (unless there are sources because of how bad those journals are). As I pointed out in my above "keep" !vote, the journal meets NJournals without any problem. --Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * While I hold Keynesian economists in roughly the same estimation as Sigourney Weaver's attitude concerning alien eggs, I must vote Keep. Pax 09:44, 29 January 2015 (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.