Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Sector Credit Framework

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. Improve and expand, before any renomination consideration, thank you for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public Sector Credit Framework

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

One person's theory, with no references from anybody else. The "peer reviewed paper" referred to in the last paragraph is by the inventor of the theory, has google scholar shows zero citations to it. Of his other work, G Scholar shows none with over 4 citations.

There's a few other papers that use the phrase, none of which appear to be significant of significantly read. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits that Further Establish Notability: I assume the article has been nominated for deletion over notability concerns. I have made a number of additions to the article that may address these concerns. Specifically, PSCF has been used in two think tank studies, one of which received very extensive media coverage in Canada. Also, at least two economists have mentioned PSCF in their blogs. --Joffemd (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alphaville may be run on blog software, but it is a Financial Times website run by a legit respected economist and so a WP:RS. Article's obvious WP:COI problems and self-citing should, however, be addressed by disinterested editors. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:40, 22 December 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.