RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2120Goal: $3500

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Behavioral economics

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Behavioral economics | Result: Keep by a very narrow margin[edit]

Behavioral economics (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)


  1. Poorly sourced. At best, a merge to economics. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. I have studied Behavioral Economics. It's a solid field. There's nothing to debunk here. Rational1 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


  1. Just because the article has no source is not a reason to delete it, it's a reason to make it better. The article doesn't need to merge with economics, it's fine as an article of it's own. Diacelium (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Improve don't delete.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 07:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. I think this topic merits an article of its own and this does not automatically mean that it needs debunking as Rational1 assumes above. RW has several articles on, say, the Sun, physics, and medicine. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. -DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 18:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)