Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Program for Monetary Reform


 * 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 merge to Chicago plan. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A Program for Monetary Reform

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)


 * Comment Why do you believe it's a hoax? Did some research on it and haven't found anyone disputing it, in fact found a journal article possibly mentioning it: SportingFlyer (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Here, from 1993 (before all this got started), page 714: (note the citations) Also here from 1996:  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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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. 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. 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. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a hoax - The Chicago Plan & New Deal Banking Reform, Allen, William R. "Irving Fisher and the 100 percent reserve proposal." The Journal of Law and Economics 36.2 (1993): 703-717.. Seems to be widely referred to. Merge is possible to Chicago plan - but it would require a re-titling there, and extensive work.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge perhaps to [Chicago plan]]. It does not look like a hoax to me, but like an academic paper that never saw the light of day.  I note that four of the 6 authors are notable enough to have articles.  However, we cannot keep an article on every pamphlet that may have been written.  It may become significant in the history of its topic, but I doubt it merits a free-standing WP article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with [Chicago plan] - agree with Peterkingiron's reasoning. Reissgo (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. -The Gnome (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.