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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JEL classification code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(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]

• Keep: As CLC says, there is abundant significant coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] took two minutes to find on GScholar. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not sure why we are even discussing this. Definitely meets WP:WEBCRIT and WP:SUSTAINED. Contributor892z (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2025 (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.