Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEL classification code

JEL classification code

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I don't see this as passing WP:NOTABLE because we require in depth and secondary sources even though other journals use this categorical system. The references and external links all point to the publisher's website except for one. Logoshimpo (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—a quick Google Scholar search finds plenty of hits. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the other references beyond the first hit but the first hit is written by the publisher. I also note that you moved the page to its current target per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) incorrectly. Logoshimpo (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the other references beyond the first hit
The first one is published in the Journal of Economic Literature (one of the top-3 journals in economics along with AER and Econometrica), but is not written by JEL—it's a paper describing the use of JEL in metascience. The second, third, fourth, and fifth hits aren't published in JEL. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's entertain the idea that among the 5 references: there is significant coverage. But they discuss different topics related to the codes. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly what one would expect from a highly notable topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]