Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentine Currency Board

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Argentine Currency Board
This came up for deletion about 5 weeks ago (the discussion is on the talk page). It was deemed original research but several people said give it time and see if the original writer (FGVozza) integrates it into the Economy of Argentina article or somewhere else. Well it hasn't been touched. I gave it a better title, but other than that, it's the same page that came up to a vote a month ago. I say it's time to delete it. it's still original research. If someone can integrate it somewhere else, now's the time. Otherwise, I think it's time to delete this one. --Woohookitty 07:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Should have been moved to user space of User:FGVozza five weeks ago pending the rewrite. -- Curps 08:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to User:FGVozza, no redirect. Megan1967 10:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. If that's the consensus, I can do the moving. --Woohookitty 18:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand what the fuss is about here. The article as written is factual, extremely interesting, and covers the last fifteen years of Argentine currency and monetary policy most effectively.  In addition, it is presented in a very NPOV fashion, and both the pros and cons of the various stages of policy implementation are discussed.  It has clearly been written after careful review of published information (see the bibliography), and I fail to see how one could write an intelligent article on this subject in any other way.  You are saying it is "original research".  I disagree.  The "original research" articles that I see coming up on VfD are all pursuing a new line of thought, a theory, or a favorite hobby-horse, and are appropriately deleted as unencyclopedic.  This is entirely different.  I also find the "style editing" tag attached to the article inappropriate.  Yes, the format could be improved, with better sub-heads, links to other articles and so on, but I personally find the style very apt, and it covers the subject better than the Economy of Argentina article does.  I would not be surprised to read such an article in a published encyclopedia.  As to the naming of the piece, Argentine Currency Board is perhaps not bad.   I suppose it should be called Argentine exchange rate management 1991-2002, but Argentine Convertibility Plan might do the trick.  KEEP HowardB 19:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Well it does qualify as original research. If you go to No_original_research, it clearly states that Wikipedia houses articles, not essays. Essays are considered original research. And this is an essay. It does cite sources, but it is not in the accepted Wikipedia format. The headers are essay headers, not headers in the headline style that Wikipedia uses. And the user has been given ample opportunity to change the article so it fits the Wikipedia format. Whether or not it is well written is not really the point. And it creates redundancy, especially since nothing even links to this page, so it's essentially an orphan. Not even the Economy of Argentina page links to this. --Woohookitty 22:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment of original research, and so does No_original_research. You have chosen to take one single word -- "essay" -- from that page.  The rest of it would clearly define this article as not original research.  Look at the checklist under the heading "What is research and what is not" -- not one single point there would categorise it as original research.  Not one.  Would you rather an article cut and paste from a few web sites and change a few words to avoid copyvios?  The subject of this article is complex -- there is no right and wrong, so the only way to write it is to visit source material and construct a balanced summary of it.  That is NOT original research.  The actual writing of it, and the structure, wikification, etc. clearly needs attention, but those are not reasons to delete it.  I have undertaken a significant rewrite, improved the layout, added links, and so on.  I would ask you all to please take a thorough look, revisit No_original_research and reassess your votes.  If there is a consensus to keep this, I will undertake, also, to establish category links and links from other wikipedia articles. Upon  further reflection, I agree that the Argentine Currency Board title is best.  HowardB 13:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not "original research" as per that definition at all. Bad format of good content is not a reason to delete in itself - David Gerard 13:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable, properly referenced. Format could do with some cleanup - David Gerard 13:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.  I agree with HowardB and David Gerard that the article is not original reserach.  It currently has more the style of an essay than of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, but that can be rectified quite easily by editing.  The Wikipedia stricture against original research is to prevent people from introducing original ideas, discoveries, etc into the Wikipedia that have not been vetted by peer review and/or public discussion.   Encyclopedias are compilations of received knowledge, not journals for the announcement of new discoveries and original findings.  But, of course, the injunction against original research is not a prohibition of doing any research; indeed, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries and syntheses of published, mainly secondary, sources, and these are presumably produced by research. Indeed, another Wikipedia injunction is to cite your souces, which this article does quite well.     All that said, even if the article were entirely original research, that would not be grounds for its deletion.   Sometimes cleaning up would reduce an article to a sub-stub, and many VfD voters (including me) vote to delete sub-stubs; but in general VfD votes are not about content but about topics.  A topic might be so bound up with its original research content that it should be deleted; but an article that was entirely original research on a valid topic can be rewritten and generally should not be deleted.   The topic of this article certainly merits an article in the Wikipedia.    --BM 14:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced, informative. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ejrrjs | What? 22:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with BM.-gadfium 22:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.