Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act (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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act
A summary of nesara.org, which is about a non-notable fringe legislative proposal with a single secondary source that's significantly shorter than the article. No citable criticism of the proposal seems to exist. RandomP 03:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I edit this article once in a while. I have no interest in the plan itself from a political standpoint.  I understand this is a fringe proposal with little or no legislative action.  Thus there is little criticism or documentation.  However, I don't know if that is reason enough to delete it.  It seems to be a real plan with some small support.  Perhaps it's a waste of space - doesn't bother me much either way.  Morphh 04:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Morphh. Yes, it needs a facelift.  But let's keep it. Adambiswanger1 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Totally nutty, but sufficiently well-established to be notable. GeorgeStepan e k\talk 04:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a legislative proposal which has not even been introduced into Congress, and per the article doesn't even have any supporters there. Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of this proposal, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and recreate if/when it gets introduced to Congress or even gets notable support. Opabinia regalis 05:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per O.regalis ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all minor leaguers, un-elected candidates, and un-proposed legislative proposals, unless they be truly NOTABLE. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 08:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as it has no supporters and no mainstream media coverage. As it is only a proposal the title is misleading as well. Kevin 09:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, partially because of its nuttiness, if it could be verified that it has any supporters. See below. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unintroduced, fringe legislation. --JChap 19:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kevin. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's simply not notable. Reyk  YO!  02:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Commment It's got a subforum on http://www.quatloos.com &mdash not just a thread, a subforum. That leans toward being notable, at least in that context.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This may be more applicable to NESARA_conspiracy_theory. -  Morphh 17:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link? All I can find is about NESARA the scam, which is not the same as NESARA the legislative proposal (I'm not sure about their relationship.  They seem to have different expansions of the acronym, and the scam is quite notable while the legislative proposal is not.
 * (posted after edit conflict, though it reads like a me too)
 * RandomP 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I'm not sure of the relationship, either.  I think this one should be deleted as failing WP:V, as I can't find any reference to it which is not a reference to the conspiracy theory. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not verifiable.  Almost all references are to the "legislation" in NESARA_conspiracy_theory. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The legislation seems to be fully documented at the asscribed site nesara.org and its fringe status is not a good reason for deletion as most new ideas start out on the fringe of conventional thinking. Carbonate 05:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The version at nesara.org exists, but is not notable. (Especially since the first google reference to "nesara.org" is from nesara.org, and the second is from nesara.us....) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to NESARA conspiracy theory Deleuze 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the SECOND time this article has been put it up for deletion. It survived once. It should survive again. It IS notable, notably in DISTANCING the legitimate version from the well-known hoax. It is a valid proposal that has merits against the Flat Tax, and other tax proposals. It is also a valid proposal that has merits against the Moneteray Reform Act, and other monetary reform proposals. It is based on a published book. It is cited by several sources, and not just the nesara.org page. Further, it is informative to those interested in knowing what the difference is between the hoax version and the NESARA Institute's version. There is a link on both the NESARA and NESARA conspiracy theory linking both to the other so as to present the information seperately, clearly, and distinctly.  I am not from NESARA, I do not work for NESARA. I just happened to find out about it while reading a news article about it, and also by reading an interview with its author, by a notable news source. I believe that to delete this article would violate the founding principles of wikipedia - namely it would mean deleting NOTABLE information from the public view.  Those unfamiliar with the topic often don't take the time to look into it before forming their own opinions about it, especially since the hoax version is so noticiable, and has already "poisened the well" in its receipt by those in Congress.  With the death of the author last May, it has been even harder to fight the credibility issues the hoax version has created for the NESARA Institute.  This article helps then to give people an OBJECTIVE view of Dr. Barnard's legislative proposal, as compared to other reform proposals that already are notable for inclusion in  wikipedia. I ask that the administrator consider the fact that a real NESARA exists as opposed to the fake hoax one - one that doesn't even look like the original but attempts to steal the name of the original. I also ask that the administrator consider the fact that the public wants objective information about the non hoax version of NESARA. This article is also not original research, any more than Flat Tax is. It is just as notable as other tax reform proposals that have been listed on wikipedia. I agree the article needs clean up, but to delete it altogether would be unfair to the effort at seperating the two NESARAs for the public view, and the intention of the editors of both NESARA and NESARA conspiracy theory. inigmatus 14:45, 16 June 2006 (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.