Talk:World Economics Association

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

[Untitled][edit]

I was informed by another editor that this page has been proposed for deletion. I am on the Executive Committee of this body as noted in the article and can confirm that this is a significant organisation which is, like me (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Keen), attempting to reform economics despite entrenched resistance to change from within the profession.

As well as having over 10,000 members who receive its free online publications, the WEA publishes eBooks which are available on Amazon. See for example https://www.amazon.co.uk/Developing-economics-post-crisis-world-Steve/dp/1848901860/.

It is a significant institution in the troubled world of economic theory, and deserves its own Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfSteveKeen (talk • contribs) 14:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there third-party coverage of it? I see one newspaper article, for example. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is the relevant guideline here - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: I have removed the PROD tag per @ProfSteveKeen:'s request above. No opinion on the deletion, and of course no predjudice to an AfD nomination, but it appears to be controversial. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't get the media coverage that some of its members get (), but it is active with several journals being edited under its auspices (http://www.collegepublications.co.uk/journals/econth/). I found the following external links to it with a quick Google search:

http://positivemoney.org/2014/07/world-economics-association-sovereign-money/ http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/business/aspire/issue14summer2014/gurwesandheterodoxeconomics/ http://www.res.org.uk/view/art6Oct14Features.html http://hetecon.net/?page=resources&side=useful_links

ProfSteveKeen (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an interesting organisation, and one that may well be important - but we basically need there to have been reasonably substantial third-party coverage of claims made in the article. A whole lot of primary source references in a Wikipedia throws up big red flags. If it's to survive the present deletion discussion, it'll definitely need the substantial third-party coverage - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]