Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debt-based monetary system

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was Keep. Pastordavid (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debt-based monetary system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article constitutes opinion / original research, and does not qualify as a consensus article on debt-based monetary systems. The article is fundamentally unsound and needs total deletion. Gantlord (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the condition that references are added. Auroranorth (!) 13:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've reviewed this article's talk page, and page history to get some sense of the drastic changes that have occured over the past several days. It seems that the The Heymann Standard is at work. Before the massive editing, it was pretty propagandistic, with severe issues with WP:POV, and WP:OR. Currently this article clocks in at a whopping two sentences, and needs a great deal of work, with collegiate level of references, but concerns over its fundamental soundess are no longer critical to its AfD.
• Keep This is not Original research. Fundamentally unsound? clearly an important article in terms of the monetary policy of governments. Twenty Years 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. this is clearly an important concept, and worth noting. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Gut and Stub. It should be pruned back to the original two sentences, and built up from there if possible. Virtually of the rest of it is propaganda, and the patient would not survive the radical surgery necessary to make the rest of it salvageable.--Gregalton (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The article just needs work it should not be deleted Alexfusco5 01:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is known concept. However, further sources could/should be added.Osli73 (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2007 (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.