Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECONned

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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination, concerns have been addressed and article has been improved. A hat tip to Andreas for improving the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ECONned

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has existed as a stub since 2011 and in the decade since then has not had a single source added to it. Its only "reference" is a link to its store page, which makes this article look like an advertisement. It has been tagged as needing citations since 2016 and tagged for notability since 2022, but no movements to rectify these issues have been made. As such, I'm recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete: I found nothing on this to substantiate notability; no good references at all, especially no secondary sources (WP:GNG) or indication of meeting WP:NBOOK.~~ Actualcpscm (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, with all the reviews that have been found, I think keep is the only reasonable option. Thanks to everyone who searched for these better than I did! Actualcpscm (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find mentions in conjunction with descriptions of its author (for example, "Yves Smith, prominent blogger and author of ECONned...") I can't find any sources to support notability per WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a substantial two-page academic review by Neil Fligstein in Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 40, No. 2 (March 2011), pp. 140-142; and the book has well over 100 citations in Google Scholar. There is another three-page review here by Richard Du Boff in Monthly Review; Sep 2010; 62, 4. There is also coverage here (also published in a shorter version here, both available via WP:Library). I think it might be worth having a further look around. (The fact that the book is mentioned in a lot of author descriptions does make it hard to find sources that are about the book, but I am not sure right now that they don't exist.) --Andreas JN 466 12:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Actually, refreshing my memory, WP:NBOOK only asks for two substantial reviews, and I've posted two substantial academic reviews above. In addition, there is a press review here in The Guardian, and there are assorted mentions like the one here by Glenn Greenwald. That already means it clearly meets WP:NBOOK. (The article does require some work to reflect these sources ...) --Andreas JN 466 12:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NBOOK per citations listed by Andreas. Sal2100 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or merge to an article to be created at Susan Webber (blogger). Noteworthy? Yes. Notable? I am not convinced that the current stub content requires its own article. BD2412 T 19:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added a Reception section with six reviews (Contemporary Sociology, Monthly Review, The Guardian, South China Morning Post, Central Banking and ScienceBlogs, the first four of which are summarised. (I can't see the Central Banking one and the ScienceBlogs one is a little too lightweight in that company.) --Andreas JN 466 23:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Andreas has now done some excellent work on this article and found a litanny of reviews that support the book's notability. My concerns have now been thoroughly addressed and I no longer think this article warrants deletion. Thanks for the efforts Andreas! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Andreas's great work. Thanks for doing it! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.