Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Program for Monetary Reform: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:19, 3 March 2018

Latest revision as of 03:25, 5 February 2023

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 14:

::Nobody's disputing it because the article is not real. Academics don't cite or discuss fake articles. The story that this is a key policy document written by one of the top economists of his day, Fisher, but never published and never cited until this mysterious copy showed up -- ostensibly from a single obscure library -- strains credulity. Hundreds of University libraries would have retained copies of a significant document by eminent monetary economist Fisher. And the context in which it was "discovered" is to bolster a fringe activist campaign. Not in the course of research, library cataloguing, or any other plausible routine. Note that there has been discussion of 100% reserve banking from time to time, including by Fisher. But that is not the same as the claim as to the existence or content of this article. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

:::Here, from 1993 (before all this got started), page 714: [http://www.greytrek.com/IrvingFisher.pdf] (note the citations) Also here from 1996: [https://books.google.com/books?id=xdk_r5Q-GvwC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=%22a+program+for+monetary+reform%22+fisher&source=bl&ots=uywUOakl30&sig=AhCfcqspNp5u1EXVphHISEweDZI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE4c6LxL3ZAhXK24MKHbVJBkM4ChDoAQgpMAE#v=onepage&q=%22a%20program%20for%20monetary%20reform%22%20fisher&f=false] The dates are important since the sources show this was "found" by the guy mentioned in the article around 1995. I don't think it's fake, but I do think it's been blown out of proportion. Not sure what to recommend on deletion grounds. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ([[User talk:SportingFlyer|talk]]) 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History|list of History-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Mark the train|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Forte;">MT Train</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Mark the train|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Segoe script;">''Talk''</fontspan>]]} 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)</small>

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Finance|list of Finance-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Mark the train|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Forte;">MT Train</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Mark the train|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Segoe script;">''Talk''</fontspan>]]} 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)</small>

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America|list of United States of America-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Mark the train|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Forte;">MT Train</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Mark the train|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Segoe script;">''Talk''</fontspan>]]} 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)</small>

*'''Redirect/merge''' - Looks real to me. Its certainly a Fringe topic within economics, and probably shouldn't be covered in any depth in an article like [[Fractional reserve banking]], but we do have an article about Fisher's proposals, such as [[Full-reserve banking]] and [[Chicago plan]]. This article could redirect to Fisher, or better, to [[Chicago plan]]. To me it seems that most of the citations to this paper, and there are a lot, couches the paper in a discussion of Fisher's ideas and isn't really ''about'' the paper. I don't think the paper passes NBOOK, and we don't usually have articles about every academic manuscript that has a dozen or two citations. I could maybe be convinced that the subject is suitable for an encyclopedia, I think better would be some energy put into those other articles as merge destinations. [[User:Smmurphy|Smmurphy]]^{([[User talk:Smmurphy|Talk]])} 05:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

*'''Merge''' to [[Chicago plan]] where it is already briefly mentioned as a followup proposal. If the editors of the [[Journal of Law and Economics]] did not think it is a hoax, who am I to argue. [https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/467295?journalCode=jle Irving Fisher and the 100 Percent Reserve Proposal] ("In the fall of 1938, joined by Paul Douglas, Frank Graham, Earl Hamilton, Willford King, and Charles Whittlesey, he [Fisher] drafted a five- page statement, 'A Program for Monetary Reform.' During the winter it was widely circulated, and in March 1939 it was sent to the president ..."). Including the full text of the memo is a copyright violation, however, isn't it? I flagged it but didn't blank it out of indecision. [[Special:Contributions/24.151.116.12|24.151.116.12]] ([[User talk:24.151.116.12|talk]]) 19:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Line 24:

*'''Merge''' into [[Chicago plan]] (where it merits a section) with which it shares almost everything. This is an easy one. And whether the subject itself, i.e. the proposal, is with or without any real merit, or whether it's a hoax or not, is irrelevant. This is a notable subject but the material is already up there in the Chicago proposal article. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 05:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>