Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantity theory of credit

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 delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity theory of credit

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

Self promotion by author of an unnotable theory. Citations that mention the theory by name are almost all by the author in unreviewed conference papers. No evidence that any peer-reviewed article has taken note of the theory. The article proclaims the theory's mention in i) a master's dissertation, ii) a presentation at a CEPR conference.

Note that a Google News search,[1] Google Scholar search,[2] Google Book search,[3] and JSTOR search,[4] for "'Quantity theory of credit' werner", bring up nothing except what is written by the author himself. --LK (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was some media coverage of the book release (says Google). However, that coverage was fairly short-lived, and in any case does not excuse the article being a pure puff piece. Burn it. Burn it with fire. Kerfuffler (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into quantity theory of money of which this is a refinement or development. Warden (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is just a press release for this guy's pet theory.--Talain (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promoting puff piece that's only referenced by the author himself - no secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2012 (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.