Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facilitation board (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   no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Facilitation board (economics)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non-notable hypothetical institution


 * Comment The subject matter appears not to meet WP:GNG - it's a hypothetical type of organisation conceived by a couple of marginally notable academics and gets a passing reference in a couple of secondary source books. Subject matter overlaps with Participatory Economics article and contains very few references.
 * A search for "facilitation board" returns a lot of false positives as it's a fairly generic term in economic organisation like "steering committee". If further evidence can be found to justify the article's continued existence I'd suggest moving to "Facilitation Board (participatory economics)" or the term the academics used which is "Iteration Facilitation Board"Dtellett (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 04:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I find the argument at Obscure does not mean not notable is applicable here. Iteration Facilitation Boards receive independent (not written by Albert and Hahnel) academic discussion here:
 * Jeong, Seongjin. 2007. Models of Participatory Planning for Socialism in the 21st Century. GSNU (Gyeongsang National University) Working paper. 168( 1): 1-41. (Copy of text here) For reference, "Seongjin Jeong is Professor of Economics and former Director of Institute for Social Sciences at Gyeongsang National University, South Korea. He received his PhD from Seoul National University and has written widely on Marxism and the Korean economy. His work has appeared in international peer-reviewed journals including Review of Radical Political Economics and Rethinking Marxism. He has also translated some major Marxist works into Korean."
 * I think the separateness of their notability from Participatory economics is present, if limited. However, given that IFB's have been a central part of the critique of the viability of ParEcon, of which Auerbach and Scott is only one example, there's reason to separate them. The better reason, though, is making it easier to understand the ParEcon article, per WP:Article series.--Carwil (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Jeong, Seongjin. 2007. Models of Participatory Planning for Socialism in the 21st Century. GSNU (Gyeongsang National University) Working paper. 168( 1): 1-41. (Copy of text here) For reference, "Seongjin Jeong is Professor of Economics and former Director of Institute for Social Sciences at Gyeongsang National University, South Korea. He received his PhD from Seoul National University and has written widely on Marxism and the Korean economy. His work has appeared in international peer-reviewed journals including Review of Radical Political Economics and Rethinking Marxism. He has also translated some major Marxist works into Korean."
 * I think the separateness of their notability from Participatory economics is present, if limited. However, given that IFB's have been a central part of the critique of the viability of ParEcon, of which Auerbach and Scott is only one example, there's reason to separate them. The better reason, though, is making it easier to understand the ParEcon article, per WP:Article series.--Carwil (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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.