Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money creation (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Money creation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article overlaps too much with "fractional reserve banking" see [Overcategorization] Reissgo (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I see the need to reorganise somehow the content between the two articles, but "money creation" remains the most generic term that anyone can understand (and in fact the one that most people look for) so it would keep it and make sure to refer people to the FRB within it and make sure both articles are consistently complementary. My two cents. Stanjourdan (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Post-edit: actually the Money supply article would be a far better candidate for deletion/merge!
 * Keep. It's true there is some overlap, however there are good reason to keep the money creation article as a generic article on the topic:
 * 1) the value of the money creation article is that it describes other ways to create money outside of the banking system (ie money creation by the central bank itself). FRB is just one way to create money;
 * 2) the notion of fractional reserve baking itself has been largely criticized. Fractional reserve banking can be rightly described as the outcome of the money creation process, but banks don't "multiply" central bank reserves into broad money (they adjust their reserves a posteriori). I don't want to start a debate on this point here, but as a matter of fact there are a number of alternative terms to describe Fractional reserve banking (eg. "inside money"; "broad money"). It's probably not a coincidence that most central banks have avoided reference to FRB and talk about "money creation" instead (see the BoE & Bundesbank for example).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This AfD proposal is utter nonsense. All money and banking articles are interrelated and more or less overlapping. That's why it's a category.  Maybe OP can add a section about money creation in a gold standard or money creation in a shell-exchange economy to satisfy any concerns.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a very standard topic covered in almost all macroecon and money and banking courses. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not in dispute - the question is - is the contents already covered by the fractional reserve banking page.Reissgo (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Money creation and fractional reserve banking are almost synonymous. Indeed the Bank of England paper Stanjourdan mentions, entitled "Money Creation in the Modern Economy" is essentially a paper that describes how fractional reserve banking works. The two articles have sections going over the same ground - see for example their sections on the Money Multiplier. Surely encyclopaedias should not cover the same information in about the same level of detail in two places at once. Reissgo (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a self-published BoE organ. SPECIFICO  talk  22:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC) And it's OR to characterize that essay as an endorsement of this proposal. The essay is not about the question this thread is to resolve.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No they are not synonymous! That's what i tried to explain above. The fact that FRB is money creation does not mean all money creation is FRB... For example QE or printing notes / minting coins are other forms of money creation which do not involve FRB. Stanjourdan (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let us consider the individual sections of the money creation page...
 * * Lede - this material is covered on the FRB page
 * * 1 - this material is covered on the FRB page
 * * 1.1 - this material is covered on the FRB page
 * * 1.2 - this section (with zero references) is covered by its own dedicated page.
 * * 1.3 - this section is covered by its own dedicated page.
 * * 2 - this material is covered on the FRB page
 * * 2.1 - this material is covered on the FRB page
 * * 2.2 - this material is covered on the FRB page
 * * 3 - this material is covered on the FRB page
 * Reissgo (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't need to convince me about the overlaps (and neither do i need convincing about the need to seriously improve the consistency of all money related wiki pages) but yet I remain unsatisfied by your lack of response to my objection that all money creation mechanisms are not linked with FRB, hence one cannot claim that the FRB entry would advantageously replace money creation. Second I would be curious to know what would justify moving money creation to FRB and not – for example – to Endogenous money or money supply. I think there is need for a much larger conversation here before deciding on deleting this particular page. Stanjourdan (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed Stanjourdan, there could be money creation mechanisms not connected to FRB. But the term "money creation" as discussed in textbooks would normally be a reference to money creation within a fractional reserve system. If you made a Venn diagram of fractional reserve banking and money creation (as discussed on the wiki page), then the sum total of what is outside of fractional reserve banking is IMHO A) rather small and B) fully covered elsewhere.


 * On another note altogether, much of the contents of fractional reserve banking is very contentious and has been battled over for years by many frustrated editors. If we have another page which contains essentially the same material in similar levels of detail then we are unnecessarily creating two battlefields. Reissgo (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If anyone is concerned that deleting the money creation page could leave readers missing out on anything, we could A) have money creation redirect to fractional reserve banking. and B) add a small section to fractional reserve banking entitled "Alternative ways of creating money" which gave links to pre-existing wiki pages. Reissgo (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Disagree on the grounds that libertarians and other folk mark a distinction between fiat and money with intrinsic value. The subject of money is vaster then just the specific national currencies in place and today's cryptocurrencies involve a different process of creation. --JamesPoulson (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes that's where the shells and gold rush stuff comes in. I guess they didn't have a gold rush in Great Britain but they did sail all hither and yon in search of material wealth and inflations and deflations ensued.  This is one of the snowiest AfD keeps in recent memory. Nor is the content controversial. It's just one editor with a bug in his britches bee in his bonnet about the British banking system. All the economics articles could use improvement, because they involve technical subject matter and it's natural that the population of WP editors qualified to contribute is smaller than it is for, say, cheese. SPECIFICO  talk  13:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I concede that the money creation page *could* talk about many things unconnected with fractional reserve banking - but the page as it stands scarcely does. The proof of the pudding is in the eating - look at the table above - seven out of nine "sections" are essentially the same as on the FRB page. Does anyone want to challenge my summary of the nine sub-parts of the main page? If the page contained more distinct content I would not be making this AfD request. Reissgo (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source to get you started on your porridge pudding. Tally ho! Have at it.
 * And whilst you're enjoying your visit here, you might want to read the helpful WP guidance at the top of the edit screen for this page and improve the article with RS content rather than trying to disappear it.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. An apple and orange overlap in being fruit but they remain distinct. That and fractional reserve banking obviously talks about a type of banking. Money creation is a subtopic in this given context and credit creation is just one kind of money creation :) --JamesPoulson (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - at the moment the article overlaps with fractional reserve banking, but its scope is wider. With AfDs its worth considering whether the article would be a keep if the page was in a reasonable shape. The article needs work on broadening, this is cause to broaden it, not delete it. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep this isn't a great article, but it's nowhere close to WP:TNT. I'm not convinced a merge with Fractional-reserve banking would be appropriate. Regardless, a merge should be discussed on a talk page or WikiProject page, and not here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Looks like the article is a hoax and propaganda. Let me put some citation needed tag in the article. Crashed greek (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Section Money creation by commercial banks part is hoax. One reference is page 1 of a book. First half of article looks fine. Crashed greek (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - While admitting that there may be some overlap here and there as things currently stand, this is a very legitimate encyclopedic topic and is not a POV fork. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2017 (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.