Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diseconomies of scale

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diseconomies of scale[edit]

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

As others before me have noted, this appears to be original research and synthesis. The only sources offered did not mention the topic. One doctoral dissertation might support it but no published works have been offered to support any of the article's claims. Joja lozzo 01:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has a source, and many more can be found just by Googling. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were a couple of references but neither mentioned this topic. One was just a list of holdings - pure synthesis. If there are sources, please provide them. Joja lozzo 02:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of sources does not relieve the OR problem. The article should reflect the sources not the other way around. Joja lozzo 02:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a notable topic covered in many economics textbooks.[1][2][3][4] (If those Google Books links don't work, just look at the first page of Google Books search results.) The information is broadly correct even if not sourced. If there are problems with article content that can be fixed by editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a standard topic covered in economics textbooks. If the nominator doesn't like the current draft, he may improve it himself per our editing policy. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles information is correct and informative. If it were to be deleted Wikipedia would miss a key topic in Microeconomics. Nominator should improve it himself if he is not satisfied with current references/content. Nominator fails to point out any factually incorrect information in the article. 140.184.188.253 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2013 (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.