Deletion of Resource-based economic model

Comment: to Resource-Based Economy (The Venus Project), or something to that effect. Then copy edit the article. See . Enough sources exist to base an article upon, so the topic ''does'' meet . See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-walter-donovan/the-zeitgeist-movement-en_b_501517.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=1 for starters
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM||WP:GNG)

Comment: Rephrasing what I said in the nom, since my concerns have not been addressed: why I call for deletion is '''because the article duplicates (the purpose of) existing articles on the same topic'''. Not just one article but three. We don't need a fourth. And articles should be titled according to what a majority of secondary sources call the subject (). It's not RBEM, it's RBE. And the reasons that I listed are the reasons why I don't just support merging the content into (the) other article(s). By me, the TVP article could/should be expanded, and a more modest/shorter version of the current RBEM content could be written for the section in the older RBE article. —&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:TITLE)

Comment: per nomination. We already have far too much overlapping fringe-economic cruft; the fewer places it can be copy & pasted to, the further we reduce the |neutrality problem
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)