Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coase's Penguin

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 – no independent sources to verify notability. KrakatoaKatie 19:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Coase's Penguin

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Coase's Penguin

Coase's Penguin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article seems to be a summary of a published paper. There are no independent reliable sources characterizing any importance or significance of Coase's Penguin. Rather than being the topic of reliable sources, the essay seems to be reference material that would be cited among many other references by downstream authors. There does not seem to be enough reliable source material on Coase's Penguin that is independent of Coase's Penguin for this article to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Although the article does not belong on Wikipedia, Wikisource might be an appropriate location for this article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Cited 73 times in Web of Science. I do not find that such an astounding figure as to warrant an article for an individual scientific paper. Merge into the article for the author. Most notable academics have several papers in this range. I would not like to start the practice of considering papers notable unless there were actual evidence that they were viewed as landmarks. I don't see it here. DGG (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sign of notablility I can find. MarkBul 17:22, 8 September 2007 (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.