Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NESARA

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

NESARA

 * Delete Completely idiosyncratic non-topic -- not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think it should be deleted.  At best this merits a brief entry on a page about hoaxes or perhaps on a page about bizarre social engineering projects.--csloat 30 June 2005 22:20 (UTC)
 * Keep This reason for deletion is idiosyncratic itself as it bears no resemblence to reality. This article is supported by a book, a movie, a nonprofit organization, and provides a well known example for new Wikipedia general categories of monetary reform, and tax reform. Modeled after the Fair tax article, it could be submitted that this article on NESARA be split into two articles: one about the NESARA internet hoax, with a reference to the legitimate version; and then a seperate article about the legitimate NESARA bill itself as currently under review by the Presiden't Commission for Tax Reform at www.taxreformpanel.gov; and presented to many congress persons over the last decade. I am currently not aware of any Wikipedia litmus test for legislative proposals as being limited only to proposals that are submitted to congress and have a bill number. Though some NPOV issues are raised due to the lack of arguments against NESARA, that can easily be addressed by expanding the appropriate section.--Inigmatus 30 June 2005 22:28 (UTC).
 * Comment No vote yet, but the germs of the arguments are in the article's Talk page. -EDM 30 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure nonsense. Read the content. Hoax sounds about right. Groeck 1 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)


 * The article is now split into two

''An innocent woman has been publically executed after 13 days of court-ordered torture. Our judicial system has failed the higher law. The other two branches of government should have followed the higher law, just as people disobeyed the Nazi order to not harbor Jews during WWII. At the very least, if NESARA was law, it would have helped foster a culture of governmental honesty and openness that could have shed the light on the conflict-of-interests so rampant in this case - and maybe even prevented her murder by court-ordered dehydration. May she become a martyr for real change.''
 * Keep I split the article into two, one for the conspiracy theory, one for the legislative proposal. I was uncomfortable with this information being mushed together in one article from the onset, and this makes so much more sense. Especially now that it's being considered for deletion, and the reasons for or against deleting one are so much more different from the arguments for and against deleting the other. So this discussion is on deleting the article containing information on the legislative proposal. I vote AGAINST deleting it, but I do think it really needs to be compressed to about 20 percent of its current size, and needs more balance. -
 * Keep both articles -- this, so that there is a "fair comment" NPOV articel on NESARA, for those who want to know about it; and the conspiracy/hoax page so that people who hear about it can find out the (relatively NPOV, though Ms.Goodwin would not agree) objective view of NESARA-the-patent-nostrum --Simon Cursitor 1 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)
 * Delete both, not significant enough for more than a brief mention in an article about social engineering projects proposed by minor non-governmental organisations.     1 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
 * Keep both, especially after the split. In the legislative sense, NESARA does seem to one of the thousands of proposals. Regardless of one's opinions about the viability of the proposal, it is now very famous proposal in some circles, connected to hoaxes, fraud, etc. If somebody would come to WP looking for information about it, these articles can really clear things up. No doubt there is the usual risk that pro-NESARA folks will try to vandalize them to adovacate their POV, but it has not lead to deletion of even more controversial places. - Skysmith 1 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)
 * Note: to people voting keep both above: the other half of the article is being discussed on another VfD, so just saying keep both here will not have the intended effect. --cesarb 1 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
 * Cleanup, MASSIVELY. This should be an article examining the conspiracy theory (the "conspiracy theory" fork should be deleted)... not a lengthy ramble describing specific provisions of a bill that does not actually exist.  Dcarrano 1 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
 * Comment The draft does exist in the public domain here: It does not have a THOMAS locator registry number since it has not been submited to Congress for review, however the draft of the bill does exist in 24 pages available to the public, drafted by Dr. Harvey F. Barnard.  Inigmatus 1 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
 * Some random person drafting a bill and publishing it on the Internet does not mean Congress has ever considered or will ever consider it, any more than if you or I did the same. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)
 * First NESARA was drafted in 1991 before the internet. It's in a published book called "Draining the Swamp", a movie is being made of the hoax version of it, and it is under official review by the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.
 * Second, I was not aware that entry on the offical THOMAS Congressional record was a WP requirement for a legislative proposal, let alone a litmus test for such an article's removal. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:18 (UTC)
 * Trolling accusations are inappropriate; assume good faith. The thing is that I don't believe there is any "legitimate" NESARA bill.  Sure, a few private citizens in a country of 250 million people might support such a bill, but that doesn't make it a bill "under consideration by Congress."  Therefore, there should only be one article, discussing the conspiracy theory surrounding this phantom bill, and it should be under the NESARA label. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
 * Good faith assumed, if not trolling, then certainly the reasons for VfD seem to be a matter of POV regarding the article's validity. One only need check out the references to be convined the validity of the article and its necessity in a public encyclopedia. If you wish to propose a change to VfD guidelines, feel free to do so. Currently, there is no rule limiting articles on proposed legislation to only articles submitted in the Congressional THOMAS record. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate that the President is actually reviewing this bill, beyond simply linking me to a generic government agency website. Otherwise, a legislative proposal that has never been, and most likely will never be, actually considered by a legislative body is not notable.  The conspiracy theory, however, is.  Article should reflect that.  Dcarrano 1 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)
 * In an email received by Dr. Harvey F. Barnard on May 2, 2005, he told me he has spoken with the Vice-Chair of the panel, former US Senator John Breaux from his home state of Louisianna, and sent him a copy of the book "Draining the Swamp" at John's request. I can provide this email, if necessary.Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:41 (UTC)
 * Okay; reasonable minds may differ at this point. I suspect Mr. Breaux was simply being polite ;-)  However, I cannot prove a negative and prove that Congress will never consider it; that would be impossible.  Still, evaluating how truly radical the bill is and what little solid evidence there is IMO that it truly is a "legislative proposal" in the sense of anyone in the legislature actually caring about it, I still maintain that the proposal itself is not notable, and that the NESARA article need discuss the proposal only in the context of the notable conspiracy theory.  Dcarrano 1 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can explain what makes the bill any more radical than the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, or the FairTax Act of 2005, and therefore not worthy of inclusion in WP; if not only to serve as an article of reference from which a large internet hoax was based from? At this point, I am sure you can agree we are merely discussing a POV difference on the merits of the bill. We are really not talking about its legitimacy, or validity, or about any particularly applicable VfD WP deletion rule. Splitting this article was the most appropriate solution to the debate between text overload, and I agree that the NESARA article could use some better summarization, but no more I would expect than to see in FairTax. Because there is no real VfD rule infringed here that can not be addressed by its splitting, I would appeal to the community to consider this VfD irrelevant and closed. Of course, in the spirit of the community, I'd still like to hear of any recommendations for cleanup of these split articles, if you feel they need it. After all, this is wiki. :)Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:58 (UTC)
 * Agree that article "to serve as an article of reference from which a large internet hoax was based" is appropriate; see my "cleanup" vote above. Disagree that we're not discussing applicable VfD WP deletion rules when, IMO, one of the subjects of the two NESARA-related articles is not notable.  But perhaps that is better discussed in the Votes for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory VfD, since that is the one I feel should be deleted, with its content largely ported over here.  Dcarrano 1 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can agree on keeping NESARA. Now as to NESARA conspiracy theory I will leave that discussion on that page. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 21:14 (UTC)
 * Keep, this VFD is ridiculous, see my comments @ Votes for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 1 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
 * This article is a split of NESARA that was performed by during that article's VFD discussion, apparently intended to address the concerns brought up in that discussion.  (See this explanation and this explanation by that user.) For GFDL reasons, if for no other, its deletion should be brought under the umbrella of that VFD discussion. Uncle G 2005-07-01 19:23:01 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. Wikipedia is not the place for detailed description of a legislative proposal not championed by a legislator, but it deserves an entry as a semi-legitimate idea co-opted by scammers. --Tysto 2005 July 2 01:37 (UTC)
 * Delete the crackpottery and legislative vaporware, include the scam/hoax part from NESARA conspiracy theory --Calton | Talk 2 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)
 * So far no one has been able to explain what makes it crackpot. Perhaps you can back up your statement with fact? 168.103.83.38 2 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
 * Put as briefly as possible, and listing only the most obvious reasons, the proposal is crackpottery because: it is written by one individual, an autodidact, and promoted through an organization that is purely web-based; it has been around for years and has not found a single legislative sponsor; the bill and its promotional literature uses the lingo of fringe groups such as tax protesters, survivalists, and marginal populists. Despite all this, still no vote. -EDM 2 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
 * First, may I remind you that it is the reason the hoaxters coopted the draft that it has a hard time finding Congressional support, and second the "lingo" is used by supporters of the FairTax and other tax reform proposals that have Congressional sponsorship. I think you present a weak case on it being "crackpot" so far. Besides being crackpot, I still don't see how it yet has to violate a Wikipedia deletion rule. So far no one has presented a proper case. Inigmatus July 4, 2005 03:31 (UTC)
 * I'll also offer the following as further support for the proposition that the NESARA proposal is crackpottery, on the related principles of "the company they keep" or "by their fruits shall ye know them." It was posted on a NESARA discussion board here by a supporter of the NESARA proposal, and it pertains to the Terri Schiavo (or Terri Schindler Schiavo, depending on your POV) fuss of a few months ago:
 * There are fine arguments on both sides of the right-to-life/right-to-die debate, but I suggest that it's only the crackpots who would address those arguments through a legislative proposal ostensibly directed at monetary and fiscal reform. -EDM 5 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)


 * I think you're getting desperate, and still have yet to prove its crackpottery. You've gone to fishing on my message board and all you can find is some obscure quote I wrote on my own message board months ago. Besides, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that in a government were honesty is fostered as a culture, that it would also permeate its judicial system, and that in principle, had such honesty been more forthcomming in the Shiavo case, the judge would have been pressured to recuse himself from it due to his conflicts of interests in the case. And no one will say it's "crackpot" to believe government should try to be more honest with its citizens. If you think this is a crackpot comment, well, ... I let your beliefs stand for what they are. You make the case against yourself, and fail to align your previous statement as having anything remotely to do with this VfD - and I might add, your statements about my own quote are way off this topic. Besides, I have yet to meet another NESARA supporter who shared my particular view in that quote anyways, so you have yet to make a case that even NESARA supporters in general are crackpots (or even myself for that matter).
 * On a related note, just because you deem maybe one supporter of the bill a crackpot (which you still can't prove), doesn't mean the bill itself is crackpot, which is what you have yet to prove - and is the point of this VfD discussion - and is what I'm still waiting to hear. You should judge the idea on its own merit, and let it stand by itself, for the article is not about me, nor about you, but about an NPOV on a bill responsible for one of the most well-known internet hoaxes still ongoing. I'm still waiting, and I'm sure those following this conversation are still waiting to hear a valid case too. We're at day 5 of this VfD and still you have not presented a valid case for deletion. If you have no further response in regards to the merits of this bill, and can't produce valid arguments in favor for its deletion according to the WP Deletion Guideliens, then I rest my case. Inigmatus July 5, 2005 18:55 (UTC)
 * As I've stated repeatedly, I haven't taken a position on whether this article should be deleted or kept, so it's not really accurate to say I'm "desperate" one way or the other. I've only posted a bit of information and commentary and it's all seeming to take on a life of its own.  Based on Inigmatus' last post immediately above, I'm more convinced than ever that NESARA is one of the crackier pots around. Still, I'm leaning toward a keep vote on this article, for its amusement value if nothing else, assuming it can get cut down to a paragraph or two. -EDM 5 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
 * And back to something that does actually have to do with this VfD discussion: NESARA is not a bill.  Until it gets introduced in Congress by an actual member of that august body, and thereby becomes a bill and acquires some notability, NESARA is simply somebody's idea (good or bad). That is one of the reasons that this article, if it is to be kept, should be substantially reduced in size. -EDM 5 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)
 * Just a note on notability - I posted this to the other vfd page too - I did a lexis/nexis search for the word "nesara" -- fulltext, not just titles -- for all dates available and found only one use of the word, in a letter to the editor from 2001 written by some guy in denver. That seems to be very non-notable.  And the creator of this page keeps insisting that this is one of the "most popular internet hoaxes" which first should have no bearing on the page about the economic theory but second is simply not true; there is nothing about it in the Snopes urban legends database.  So I am even more convinced now that this article and the other one refer to items that are not yet notable in any significant way.--csloat 5 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)
 * I think there is some confusion in terminology that it would be as well to make an effort to clear up, involving the three distinct concepts of (1) Internet hoax; (2) Internet scam; (3) tin-foil hat delusions. Concept (1) is the kind of thing you find on snopes, like the tourist on the World Trade Center with the airplane heading at him.  Those are spoofs deliberately manufactured to amuse or deceive. Neither NESARA item ("Dr." Barnard's idea nor the "secret bill to be announced imminently which will pay off all our mortgages with space alien currency") is that.  The NESARA item in this VfD—Inigmatus' NESARA, found at —is very marginally concept (3) and does not appear at all to be concept (2).  The "other" NESARA item—Dove of Oneness's ravings at —is very heavily concept (3) with a bit of concept (2) showing up as well.  If either one is notable, or delete-worthy, it's for different reasons.
 * One other data point: Inigmatus says he is in the Denver area. -EDM 5 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
 * It's just a bill, not a law. There are many thousands of bills every year.  We neither need nor want articles on every one of them.  Worse, it's not even a bill yet.  It's an unsponsored "draft proposed bill" which, if the article is to be believed, espouses a fundamentally flawed theory about money.  Unless someone can show much better evidence that this proposed bill is getting considerable public discussion or that NESARA has entered the public discourse, I have to vote "delete".  Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can back up your statement that the article espouses a "fundamentally flawed theory of money"? The hoax about serves as the appropriate level of public discourse. The purpose of this ariticle re-make was to make it clear to seperate the two since it would be in the public's best interest in investigating the hoax/scam or the proposed bill.168.103.83.38 6 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)
 * I can but it's not relevant to the discussion because being a "fundamentally flawed theory" is not a deletion criterion. My comment was an opinion that I probably should have reserved to the article's page.  The only relevant question to the deletion debate is whether or not this theory (flawed or not) is sufficiently in the public debate or historical record to justify an encyclopedia article.  So far, I have seen insufficient evidence.  No change of vote.  Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this article is deleted, the related articles Harvey F. Barnard, NESARA Institute and the incorrectly named [Dr. Harvey F. Barnard should probably also be considered for deletion.  Rossami (talk)
 * I agree these should be deleted too. I looked on lexis/nexis again and "Harvey F. Barnard" gets 0 hits; "Harvey Barnard" gets two but neither are relevant (a name in a long list of names).  I also note that Inigmatus is the user who uploaded that photo and there is no copyright information on it; I wonder if it is from a private collection and this is some sort of vanity page?  The page says he died in May so Inigmatus probably is not Dr. Barnard himself though.  I'm curious to see how Inigmatus responds next.--csloat 6 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
 * The information on the NESARA Institute website is public domain.168.103.83.38 6 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)
 * That photo is from the NESARA Institute website. So was essentially all of the text of the Harvey Barnard article, verbatim, till I cleaned it up. -EDM 6 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
 * The information taken from the NESARA Institute website is public domain, and I did post verbatim the bill description since it did a better job than I could have. Thanks for cleaning the article up. Guys, look, I'm not out to defend the thing to the death, I'm just pointing out that there is relevant information that this article, and now the split article also addresses in full what I think is perfectly within the public information scope of this wikipedia. This article was originally about the NESARA conspiracy theory and I thought I was doing a public service by pointing out that it was based from an original bill proposal that does have merit, and it would serve the public interest to know the difference.
 * Unfortunately, I can't motivate hoax and urban legend websites to update their information as easily as I can wikipedia. If you advocate for the deletion of this article, then you're advocating for something that goes against the founding idea of this wiki: namely the suppression of relevant information. It doesn't matter who or what I am, (but I'm not with the NESARA Institute, and I'm not Dr. Barnard). I like the NESARA proposal, and I spent three days pouring over the information after first hearing about it from WorldNetDaily to see if this guys was legit or crackpot. I found he was legit. Moreover, when I spoke and corresponded with him just weeks before he died, the more I realized this guy has faced an uphill battle since the hoax came out in force 5 years ago. After taking the time to read his recently published book, which was also requested by members of the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform, I offered to do what I could to set the public record straight wherever I found it, so when people start looking for it they don't see only info about some hoax, but also info about the legit bill. Now I see just how fustrating his own work was in this regard as I find people here in WP who without researching the issue simply now want to delete an article I modified with info about the legit bill, and so also now delete an entire article that has stood uncontested for over a year.
 * Granted, this is wiki, and mercilessly information is modded and changed. However, I will do what I can to keep this relevant public information up in respect to a dying man's wish, and available to the pitifully duped uninformed NESARA community that has sprung up around the hoax version, and available to the public and Congress persons that NESARA is more than just a lame hoax, but is based off of something that is legit, and the public would like to be informed if they too knew there was a difference. There, I've said my two cents. Inigmatus July 6, 2005 04:38 (UTC)
 * I think there is enough substance and bare notability to the NESARA proposal to warrant an article of about two paragraphs, but certainly not more. If the article is slashed to that length (a task I may undertake, though not imminently) my vote would be keep.  But as others have pointed out, the decision is bound up with the decision on the other NESARA article, the one dealing with the conspiracy-theory version of this proposal, which I personally don't have the will to deal with as just reading it makes me ill. -EDM 6 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
 * I've put a draft revised article text on the article's Talk page. -EDM 6 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)
 * Nice - I think that seems reasonable given the arguments made here. Much better than what was here.-csloat 6 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
 * I agree and re-iterate my vote to keep. I expect the possibility of a minor editing war that might settle on something slightly longer eventually (which I won't take part in, my interest is with the conspiracy theory), but it accomplishes Inigmatus's apparent goal of distinguishing the proposal from the conspiracy theory and providing some background on the legislative proposal that originated the whole thing. --
 * Consensus Reached I like the changes too. My edits would be to only add about two or three NESARA bill specific terms to the paragaphs. Otherwise, EDM go ahead and update the page with the changes, as it appears now there is a consensus. If no one else objects, I consider this VfD resolved in favor of Keep with EDM's revision. Anyone else concurr?Inigmatus July 6, 2005 14:36 (UTC)
 * Page edited and NPOV tag removed. I vote keep and invite Sednar to do something similar to the conspiracy theory article. -EDM 6 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
 * Page updated with 50% more relevant information. What remains in the article is basically NESARA in a nutshell, and hopefully still true to NPOV form unless otherwise referenced.Inigmatus July 6, 2005 16:46 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.