RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Behavioral economics

Behavioral economics | Result: Keep by a very narrow margin

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

Delete

1. Poorly sourced. At best, a merge to economics. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (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)

Keep

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  (talk • stalk) 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. -DiamondDisc1(talk) 18:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)