Market abolitionism: Of the cited sources that do, they all appear to be primary sources from people directly associated with the subject.  They also do not appear to actually use the term "market abolitionism" and instead offer critiques of markets, with only one passing use of the term "market abolitionist".  I looked for sources on Google Scholar, but mostly found sources that appear to be completely unrelated.  [15] As this article doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines , I'm proposing it for deletion.  Grnrchst ( talk ) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Social science .  Grnrchst ( talk ) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can only find abolitionists that were against slavery way back when.  Znews and Chomsky.info don't seem terribly RS either, as used in the article.  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes WP:GNG due to having significant coverage in reliables sources.  [1] [2] [3] [4] References ^ Robin Hahnel (2007).  "The Case against Markets" .  Journal of Economic Issues .  41 (4).  Taylor & Francis : 1139–1159.  ^ Adrian J. Walsh (1998).  "Market Pathology and the Range of Commodity Exchange: A Preliminary Sketch" .  Public Affairs Quarterly .  12 (2).  University of Illinois Press : 203–219.  ^ Adrian Walsh; Richard Giulianotti (2006).  Ethics, Money and Sport: This Sporting Mammon .  Taylor & Francis .  p. 19.  ISBN 9781134317271 .  ^ Geoffrey M. Hodgson (2018).  Wrong Turnings: How the Left Got Lost .  University of Chicago Press .  p. 194.  ISBN 9780226505886 .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Market (economics) .  My browser crashed and I lost my full source analysis but suffice it to say that the above four sources appear to invoke places where "market" and "abolition" are used in the same sentence but does not establish a body of thought known as "market abolitionism".  If anything, these sources are either proposing (1) a socialist planning framework for replacing market systems, or (2) critiquing existing market systems by way of alternatives.  None of these establishes "market abolitionism" as a unified body of thought but the critique can be covered as philosophical counterpoints within the existing article on economic markets.  Though note that nothing in the existing article is reliably sourced for merger.  czar 05:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would support a redirect.  I also looked through those sources and would agree with Czar's analysis.  Tbh the only one I would say includes significant coverage is Walsh & Giulianotti, but they talk about it in an almost entirely different context than this existing article.  -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 10:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Market (economics) , per Czar.  A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 22:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: redirect