Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debt money


 * 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 delete. Secret account 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Debt money

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This term is defined by Michael Rowbotham, who is not a recognised professional economist, the article itself seems to be a novel synthesis combining what recognised authorities say with what Rowbotham says to deliver a new whole. Google is no help here - all the hits I can find to reliable sources in a search for "debt money" have a punctuation mark between debt and money. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Carol Moore 02:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk
 * Merge and redirect If the concept in the article is directly from Rowbotham, I'd say merge it into his article. There is also a Debt-based monetary system which might be able to hold the concept. I'm inept and ignorant on financial issues, I figure an expert would be able to say if those ideas are feasible or within the realm. Yng  varr  16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced his article is any more worthy, to be honest. This, two other related articles and his article appear to be here solely to promote his ideology, which is not widely accepted and not, as far as I can tell, published in peer-reviewed sources. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that his article is been prodded. Maybe wrap them all up into a single AFD? Wider discussion might be useful. If they're basically WP:FRINGE, there's no reason to keep any of his related articles if only a few of them end up deleted. Yng  varr  17:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It has already been through AFD. See Articles for deletion/Debt-based monetary system. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Debt-based monetary system? Sorry I'm not an expert on this subject but there looks like there are a good number of third party references available in that article.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep / Merge: Please see also the discussion at debt-based monetary system's talk page. There appear to be many references, but most of them are, to me, not reliable sources. Many of the references have also been grossly misused (hyperbole and claims not in the references, quoting a source in a way that implies the source agrees with the premise or has ever used the expression debt-based money, POV, etc). Most of the sources boil down to Rowbotham and a few other fringe sources. The only reason I'm for a weak keep is that I'm concerned this subject will show up again and again, and it would be better to have an article clearly identifying this subject as monetary crankism. (I would, by the way, be grateful for editors to beat back and cut back the thick underbrush by deleting text they feel doesn't meet the standards; I don't want to be the only one, but the content is mostly nonsense). At any rate, there should not be a bunch of articles on this obscure concept and phrasing. Perhaps one.--Gregalton (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge to Money The whole topic of fringe monetary theories is a difficult one. Although such theories are fairly marginal these days, they played a big political role in movements like Social Credit. JQ (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge to Debt-based monetary system or credit money. That article does have problems described by various templates, but it does attempt to describe a theory underlying credit money and free banking, just needs to be a lot shorter and less reliant on one source since there are others.


 * I am an expert. I can't tell you how many Economics Prizes and Awards I won at university.  I lost count.  Debt money correctly reflects Michael Rowbotham's terminology and those who wish to delete the term should read his book before commenting further.  Austrian Economists often refer to the concept as "fiat money".  Rowbotham was really the first to refer to it repeatedly and consistently as debt money or money created in parallel with debt.  I vote to keep it in.  It is an incredibly minor entry, certainly not as important as Homer Simpson, or Wii or anal sex, all of which are proudly listed as WP entries.  Surely this tiny entry can stay in for the benefit of those few who actually have an interest in Rowbotham's works.  Which is probably around 8 people in the world.  If this gets deleted, I have about 500,000 other "rubbish" non-encyclopedic entries that URGENTLY need deletion too.--Karmaisking (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment:If it's the same thing as fiat money, and the terminology originates with and is used by Rowbotham and only "a few" other people, why should it have a separate article?--Gregalton (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That it reflects his terminology is not in dispute. The issue is, whjether his terminology is sufficiently important to merit quite so many separate articles. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up comment:Karmaisking's argument is specifically addressed in Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist." So, if you don't think the article on Homer Simpson should be in WP, make the argument there. It has no bearing on this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregalton (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. We already have fiat currency, credit money, and debt-based monetary system; the subject of this article is sufficiently covered by those, and other articles already. It has virtually no content of its own, other than a definition; if it really needs to exist, it can be a redirect to one of the pages we already have on the topic. We don't need a separate article for a different name. Terraxos (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any objection to this being redirected to debt-based monetary system? I estimate that is the best solution if they're closely related but again I am not an expert on this subject, I am only asking.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * These comments show how confused the terminology is in relation to these matters, and how ignorant many people are of the distinctions between fiat currency, debt money and credit. Fiat currency simply refers to money that is not backed by precious metals such as gold.  So, the paper money you have in your pocket is fiat currency.  Debt money is the "virtual" money that exists in your bank account and is created through the issuance of debt or credit.  Money exists as a pyramid structure.  At the top is gold, still used by central banks for the settlement of international debts and is the most stable form of money known to man.  Paper money or fiat currency can exist INDEPENDENT OF DEBT, and could (at least theoretically) be issued directly by the Treasury or central government WITHOUT the issuance of interest-bearing bonds.  In fact, as The Forgotten War makes clear, the U.S. government has in the past "experimented" (briefly) with the issuance of "genuine" fiat currency directly from the Treasury (rather than the Federal Reserve) and although such "experiments" did not stick, this shows the inherent DISTINCTION between "true" fiat currency and debt money.  As explained by Michael Rowbotham, the most volatile and fastest growing form of money is "debt money" or "credit" which is created through fractional reserve banking techniques and floats around as M3 in your bank account or (increasingly) in money market funds.  This "money" can be CONVERTED into fiat currency when you visit your friendly ATM, but is SEPARATE from paper money and is created "virtually" through the issuance of new debt via fractional reserve banking.  Hence the entry should stay - and judging by your comments, is desperately needed.  The fact that this is not widely known is not a reason for its deletion - it is in fact a strong reason for its retention, to educate those who have no idea where their money comes from or what it really is.--Karmaisking (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I note tat you are the creator of this walled garden of articles, and have no contributions outside of this area. It is likely that you have come across the eternal tension between truth and verifiability, and have also perhaps not understood why having three or four articles essentially on a single concept, whose principal proponent has no widespread academic recognition, gives undue weight to this minority view. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? These comments have nothing to do with the substance of its retention.  Assume Karmaisking is a psychotic maniac bent on destroying the banking community.  What has that got to do with whether this little entry should stay, if it educates?--Rememberkarma (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article, along with a couple others, was clearly created to push a POV regarding the Federal Reserve. There's so little information, I don't see what there is that can be merged. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See comment above. This is (yet another) "personal attack" on the alleged motives of the contributor, not an attack on the article itself.--Rememberkarma (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and consider other fringe theories for prod. As someone who is and still is studying monetary economics in course, I cannot find any mention in any of my textbooks. And these are mainstream texts, not fringe theory books and self-stated texts that so dominate the reference lists of many of the pages affected. This article is not verifiable and all attempts to verify have been unsuccessful. Also, per Guy's comment above.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't be anything in your "mainstream" texts (obviously). No one is saying this is "mainstream" stuff.  The question is not whether it is "mainstream" but whether something that is ADMITTEDLY "fringe" deserves to stay on WP.  I vote that even a "fringe" entry deserves to stay, if it is backed by a reasonable argument.  I consider the argument presented by Karmaisking to be reasonable - at least sufficient for the retention of this minor "fringe" entry.  Put POV on the article if you consider it biased in some way.  Why DELETE it??--Rememberkarma (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree in this case, and don't particularly agree with the debt theory, just want to remind you that today's "fringe theories" ("the earth is round" used to be very fringe) may evolve into tomorrow's orthodoxies. Those paid and honored by the establishment often refuse to go against the establishment theories.  Monetary theory is shaped by politics, just like everything else. And even big names like Hayek have wandered all over the fringes in playing around with monetary theory. So each article should be judged on its own merits and not compared to others of perhaps much lesser merit. Carol Moore 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk
 * Sure, and once that happens we will surely reflect it, but Wikipedia is not the place to make the change happen. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. In response to Karmaking and Carolmooredc, and to back up Guy's response, see WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not a medium to push fringe theories. Zenwhat (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The theory is definitely Fringe... however, WP:FRINGE does not ban articles on Fringe theories outright. Some are considered worthy of inclusion and others are not. The key is the notability of the theory... ie whether the theory has been noticed and discussed by mainstream sources (even disparagingly).  I do not see enough evidence that this particular theory has been noticed and discussed in mainstream sources.  It is, therefore, not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Should it become so, then an article can be written.  That said... I could see including a brief mention of the theory as part of the broader New World Order conspiracy page, as it seems to relate. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - fails notability in reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2008 (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.