Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resource-based Economics

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. Valley2city^‽ 05:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resource-based Economics

Article about a WP:FRINGE economic theory/system. This is not an economic system that's recognized by the scientific community, rather it is a view held mainly by its developer Jacque Fresco who himself is not a trained economist. The concept of "Resource-based Economics" has never been published in a reputable reliable source; the only sources of information on this subject are Fresco's self-published website and the subsequent re-iteration of this information in the internet film Zeitgeist: Addendum. The article was created by User:Konamtn in a single edit on January 13; this was the editor's only edit on the English Wikipedia.

The article has never had any references to verify any of the claims made and is loaded with original research such as the following statement: "The benefits of the resource based economy are undeniable. No unemployment, No poverty, No crime, improved health and wellness." To date, the only external link or reference available for this article has been Fresco's website.

This article falls within the scope of the 2006 ARBCOM case on Pseudoscience. The case, among other things, quotes Jimmy Wales from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia". As far as general notability of such a theory is concerned, the case decided that "there must be sufficient verifiable information from reliable sources regarding a subject for there to be an article about it". This article seems to clearly fall within Jimbo's definition of what does not belong and at the same time it clearly fails sufficient verification. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The rules are pretty clear here. If a theory has not been covered in reliable secondary sources, it fails notability. A self-published page of the theory's creator doesn't count. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please don't bite. Ottre 21:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Complete psuedoscience. wp:or, wp:hoax. Mystache (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-notable original research.--Sloane (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above; out of context in Wikipedia. ArlenCuss (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pseudoscience; Wikipedia's well-developed page on Natural resource economics should provide a clear contrast to the fringe theory. HeureusementIci (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2009 (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.