Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EconLog

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EconLog[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and sourcing for pushing 5 years now without being fixed. This article is largely self-sourced and does not appear to establish WP:NWEB. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly self sourced to an excess: citations 1 through 30! But it gets worse after that. The non-self-sourced citations start in the "Reception" section, where WSJ and Onalytica Indexes each list it in directories as one of N blogs, then several sources are used to show "blog entries have been referenced by many blogs and newspapers" or similar weak attempts at riding coattails of other notables. The first fails to help here: "directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined" per WP:Notability. The second fails flat per WP:NOTINHERITED. - Bri (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2017 (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.