Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act (third 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 delete.  Majorly  (o rly?) 00:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

First Deletion Reason: To the extent that this subject was notable, that notability has long since passed, and morphed into a conspiracy theory which also lacks little notability. The subject gets ZERO Google News Search hits, and to the extent that it does obtain Google hits, these are to sources which are blogs and crackpot websites, and therefore do not meet our WP:RS requirements. Part of a Walled Garden of the tax protestor/nutburger blogosphere. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and violates Vanispamcruftisement, WP:NPOV, Verifiability, WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:FRINGE Nominator Note to Closing Admin: should this article be deleted, the Re-Direct NESARA should also be removed.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note related deletion proposal at Articles for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous deletion proposal results were Keep (June 2005) and No consensus (June 2006). &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge into NESARA conspiracy theory. (If the target is deleted, please clarify vote to mean delete.)  Current notability derives solely from the conspiracy theory, but I don't really see anything that would need to be merged into that article.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of verifiabillity and reliable sources as to actual content, and any sort of showing of wide notability. --MCB 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has survived countless VfDs. It IS notable, it IS sourced, it IS referenced, and it IS needed to distinguish two entirely separate subjects: the titled legislative proposal, and the hoax that stole the name. inigmatus 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete But not because anything mentioned above. It simply isnt a real law, no proof of it being one exists. It was simply some BS used in an internet scam, where only a small county paper covered it. --Nuclear Zer0 11:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, with No Merge. Please see my reasoning at the AfD debate for NESARA conspiracy theory. I particularly hope that Arthur Rubin reads this, because I suspect he's making a "type" error ( propositions about a thing are not of the same kind as the thing itself ). WMMartin 15:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not confusing them; the only notability (left) of this real proposal is due to the conspiracy theory/hoax. Without that, it's just another failed, unsubmitted, legislative proposal.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a Lexis/Nexis search for NESARA generated no results. I did learn that the word Nesara means "rising sun" in the the Kannada language, but this is not an idea that people in government or the press ever seem to have discussed.GabrielF 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the sources provided on article isn't enough?inigmatus 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm saying. The sources are an article on WorldNet Daily which is largely based on an article from a Tacoma paper and two websites. On Wikipedia we base decisions on notability on the presence of secondary sources. In this case there are almost none. Check the "offbeat news" section of your local newspaper's website. I can assure you that anything there will have 10 times more sources than this article. For example, the first "offbeat news" story in my local paper is (coincidentally) about Middlebury College telling students not to cite Wikipedia. A google news search for "Middlebury College" and Wikipedia gets 118 results. Admittedly, most are probably from the AP wire, but I also see separate articles from the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Guardian and a couple of college papers. And that's without going to the second page of the results. This isn't any more notable than the millions of other ideas people come up with every day. GabrielF 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with NESARA conspiracy theory, as the conspiracy theory is what gives NESARA its notability. ZERO Google News Search hits is plainly false, such that I wonder why the proponent made this claim.  I get one result for current news and 39 results for news archives.  Although the one current result is a press release about a recent independent film.  NESARA also gets five relevant hits on Google Books and one on Google Scholar. PubliusFL 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: "National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act", which is the name of this article, gets Zero Google News hits, as is appropriate, since it is not an Act, but a dead legislative proposal -- one that failed years ago.  Hence: non-notable because it's not described in WP:RS.  If you want to discuss the subject, feel free to do so without limit on the tax protestor blogs, but on Wikipedia it doesn't meet our standards.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if the hoax is notable, then the proposal is notable, and a separate article IS necessary to emphasize the blatant differences. It is encyclopedic. Most people only know about the hoax version, so to inform them of the legitimate version, seems to me, to be a compelling reason to keep the article as is. I spoke to Dr. Barnard personally before he died and he explained to me that the only reason the proposal never got serious attention was because the hoax version is so prevalent. He was still working hard to distance the proposal from the hoax until the day he died. Of course, I should mention I found out about NESARA through that article on WND, so if I could find it through third party sources, so can others; and thus it's notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inigmatus (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment. I'm afraid the proposal is only notable because of the conspiracy/hoax; whether or not it made any sense, there has been no reliable source talking about it.  The Fair Tax was at least, submitted to House and Senate committees (where it quickly died).  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * eh Dosen't hurt. Dosen't really help either. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per above. Travb (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - if there is a real legitimate version but was only generally connected to a single individual who has now died, then unfortunately it's existance on here is doomed to only be used for hoax agendas, so it might as well be deleted until it can be re-created separately from the hoax. Right now it only spreads misinformation. bov 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated. I would say WP:NFT applies the most here besides the other guidelines that are violated. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable; something doesn't have to be currently in the news to be notable or we'd have to delete 99% of articles.--Holdenhurst 13:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why is it notable?  If it's notable only because of the conspiracy theory/hoax, the article should be merged there.  If it's otherwise notable, I haven't seen evidence presented, here or in the real world.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as per above Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete do not merge. NN hoax. gidonb 00:20, 20 February 2007 (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.