Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Denationalization of 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Denationalization of Money

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are some authors so famous that their every book is notable; I do not think this is the case for Hayek, and I do not think there is any evidence that this is one of his most important works. Rather, this article seems to be an excuse for discussing his theories.  DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: While Hayek, being a Nobel-laureate economist, probably the second most famous and important after Keynes, is indeed so famous that his every book is notable, this book stands as worthy of an entry in its own right. It is the origin for an entire school of monetary theory known as Free Banking. The profession of Lawrence White, George Selgin, Richard Timberlake, and Steven Horwitz originates with this text, and all of them have specifically cited it in their own writing. When congressman Ron Paul introduced a bill to "legalize competing currencies" last year, this document was cited as a reason for doing so. Murray Rothbard dedicated an entire section in The Case for a Genuine Gold Dollar to attacking The Denationalization of Money, because it is a well-known alternative to what he advocated. Here is an analyst at Real Clear Markets discussing the book. There is also Encyclopedia Brittanica's mention of it. Of the 95,000 references to "the denationalization of money" (with quotes) presented by Google, every single one appears to indeed be discussing this book. These include mention in recent, peer-reviewed publications, and mainstream media articles. There is no doubt this book is, in and of itself, noteworthy. — Kaz (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I've found a number of references on the idea of "denationalization of money" but only one so far that discusses the book in depth, in the International Journal of Social and Legal Studies. I think discussing his theories in the article is fine if they are a summary from the book itself. The Friedrich Hayek article already has a few sentences about the book, in which it is claimed that the book started the school of thought known as free banking. Is a book notable if its content starts a new school of economic thought? I'm not sure how to think about this one, so no recommendation yet. Mark viking (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to be an important book, with connection to the Bitcoin phenomenon. Author as a Nobel laureate would seem to call for a very low bar for notability, which would seem to be easily cleared by things like THIS JOURNAL ARTICLE in the European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, entitled "On Hayek's denationalization of money, free banking and inflation targeting." There's more out there. Carrite (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know that some would argue over what the threshold standards are for "so notable that all of their works are automatically notable". Some would argue that having a Nobel would give that notability, others wouldn't. I'm honestly glad that I don't have to argue that standard here, as I was easily able to see where this book has been cited in multiple textbooks and various other sources. I'm in the process of adding more things to the article, but I've found enough to show that it passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. For encyclopedic purposes, I'm willing to presume that book-length works by Nobel laureates in their field of expertise merit separate entries unless an individual case is made otherwise. "Most important" is not an inclusion criteria here -- we don't limit entries to the "most important" kings of Norway, for example. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't buy the argument that Hayek is "so historically significant" that any of his written works are notable, he's not Albert Einstein or Winston Churchill, not even close. But, Tokyogirl79 has added citations to the article to show that this book is notable. LK (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sadly, this book is emblematic of Hayek's later years. It was the work of an aged has-been whose contribution to serious economic thought, by the time of his Nobel, was decades in the past.  By the 1970's, this once-earnest economist was pandering to a depleted constituency of ideologues and fringe theorists for whom he played a central role.  The book itself cannot be taken seriously as a work of economic theory, as it does not seriously consider the key issues surrounding its stated subject, e.g. how Hayek's fantasy regime would differ from the one we inhabit in real-world human experience. That having been said, the book continues to be cited by various conspiracy theorists, bloggers, and fringe academics.  For that reason, just as Wikipedia has articles on Area 51 and Unicorns, it seems to me that this book qualifies as well.  If there are notable published criticisms or discussions of the book, they should be included in the article to provide context.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:47, 30 January 2013 (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.