This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 00:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Participatory economics[edit]

Participatory Economics, or Parecon, is patent nonsense. Though Albert et.al have gone to great lengths in describing the vision, parecon is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head nor tail of it.

• Strong Keep -- The above VfD is by an anonymous user at 69.238.54.102 and I consider this VfD to be a troll request. While I personally have many questions about and objections to parecon, several serious books have been written on this topic. Crackpot material like Ufology and Creationism are in Wikipedia and should be included so that people can become informed. If you can cite serious objections to parecon (or any topic), then please include such objections in Wikipedia so that nonsense can be overcome with information. WpZurp 21:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep noteable Jimbobsween 21:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep whether or not parecon is a good economic theory is irrelevant to whether or not we have an article on it. DanKeshet 02:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, having an article is not an endorsement of views.
• Keep, this article has a significant ammount of information Mir 04:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep
• Keep--JohnFitzpatrick 12:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: Just another example of deletionist hijinks. Ombudsman 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Personal opinion about the validity of a theory is not reason enough to delete an article.Laurencooper 08:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - of course. it is "anarcho"-capitalist (one of the religious sects) trollbait probably.--XaViER 14:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Completely irrelevant whether this would ever work. The article is mentally stimulating. No reason at all to delete it.13July 09:10, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.