Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Program for Monetary Reform

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reissgo (talk | contribs) at 08:33, 27 February 2018 (A Program for Monetary Reform). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
A Program for Monetary Reform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax or urban legend. No secondary RS in article or Google search. Being promoted by fringe monetary policy advocacy groups. SPECIFICO talk

I've just had a look at our The Chicago Plan Revisited article and it appears to be just about entirely primary-sourced and OR. I removed a few of the blog-sourced and misrepresented sections of text and there's not much left of any substance. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here, from 1993 (before all this got started), page 714: [2] (note the citations) Also here from 1996: [3] 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. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]