This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
No, it's not... I agree that this journal certainly is notable (it has a sizable impact factor and surely is listed in other selective databases - even though that info is not in the article), I disagree with your edit summary here. The number of wikilinks to an article is absolutely irrelevant for notability (otherwise some editor could create an article, insert wikilinks in a dozen other articles, and then claim that the thing is notable). WP cannot be used to source itself, nor can it be used to base notability on. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, feel free to spend 2 days of your life to Afd it. I bet it has over 95% chance of survival. The links were independently inserted. Anyway, I will no longer watch this page. I started it just because it was missing. I do not even read that journal. History2007 (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not so prickly... You didn't read my comment correctly. I started with saying that I agree that it is notable, just not for the reason that you gave. If anyone were foolish enough to take this to AfD, I'd be the first to !vote keep. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
