Talk:Economic Letters

Untitled

The fact this little article has been proposed for deletion rather than the proposer actually fixing the things he saw that are wrong is the reason that wikipedia is starting to stink. I am not affiliated with Economic Letters - I noticed it was red linked so I took some stuff from their webpage and put it here. I will clean up the promotional tidbits - but I think this form of aggressive delete first rather than improve is garbage. This kind of deletion behaviour is the reason the more serious articles are poorly written or missing - most people that know stuff dont have time to patrol every article they write about.

Economic Letters is a reasonably well respected peer-reviewed journal and ANY of its articles are of more merit than most of the trash printed in things like: USA Today, People magazine and other such popular press magazines. In terms of journals I am sure I could find plenty of lower impact journals already listed in wikipedia that are here.

--Youbeeho (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have cleaned this article some more. And although you are correct that this is a decent journal that deserves to be covered here, that is not an excuse to write a bad, promotional-sounding stub. You can be glad it wasn't proposed for speedy deletion as spam. In general, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a very strong argument. --Randykitty (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)