Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monetary policy of the USA

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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monetary policy of the USA

Monetary policy of the USA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Disputed prod. Thinly-veiled violation of WP:NPOV. Reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Material within is already covered in other articles. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: as per discussion page. Content duplicates other articles, such as federal reserve and fractional reserve banking. Most of any content not duplicated elsewhere is original research, highly POV, misuses sources, or simply wrong.--Gregalton (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - OR and POV essay on monetary policy that entirely overlaps material in other articles. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that the content currently on this page is less than satisfactory; much of it seems to speak generally, and is not about the United States specifically. But the subject itself seems to have potential. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you Ihcoyc.There is one large factual error that needs to be corrected, but aside from that, there only seem to be compliants of NPOV, and weak ones at that. From the article's talk page

I, personally, support the maintenace of the page in a semblence of it's current state.

I have read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and would still assert that these following policies would support the case for preservation: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Preserve_information and Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Perfection_is_not_required, as well as Understand Bias and Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance, and to some extent, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Also, none of the cited reasons for proposed deletion exists in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion except with the possibility of "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" however, even in checking WP:SOAP I still find no relevence to this article. Sorry for all of this legal-type mumbo-jumbo.

I will explain again that the majority of the information is simple present-day "history." The sources are generally incontrovertible, and there is no need to represent a "mainstream" or "majority" viewpoint because these are *not* opinion pieces. Aside from the Criticisms section, the article does not contain a "view" or "perspective" or "pet theory" of monetary policy --- it is relating factual information related to monetary policy, which is mostly uncontestable due to the fact that processes described are at work nearly everyday. I would contend that the information about the implementation of monetary policy in the US is NOT to be found anywhere in wikipedia detailed as on this page. It is also a moderately sized articles (as far as webpages go ...) so I'm sure that this is not likely a merger candidate. Also, no one seems to disputing the accuracy, nor has anyone pointed out any particular source which is problematic, so I am assuming that the only problem is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone, although I still hold that the presentation of facts which generally would induce negative emotion does NOT necessarily denote a problem of bias. If it is still truly an issue, I'm willing to work on corrections, and anyone can feel free to WP:SOFIXIT, in regards to the tone. I would be interested in examples of how some of the statements could be better worded. BigK HeX (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Now that the factual issues are resolved, and weak NPOV arguments stand as the only impediment, I am confident that amedment is the better course BigK HeX (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is clearly notable. The nomination does not suggest alternative articles which cover this topic. The Federal Reserve System article is already too large per WP:SIZE, being 76K. Its relevant section Implementation of monetary policy seems weak and lacking in sources. This article seems a reasonable breakout of the topic. It might also provide a historical perspective prior to the creation of the Fed in 1913. The rest is a matter of content editing and not a matter for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep short of a possible merge with another article that warden doesn't think is possible, this seemed like a great well constructed article, which I for one fail to see why it was brought here, great article and I am a university economics student (in part).--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Some overlap is not a good reason to delete something. Monetary policies are a fairly large economic policy and should probably be covered. matt91486 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Commment: All of the "keeps" here refer to the notability of the subject. There is no dispute that the subject could be notable, and an article might be justified - but the article as written is not anything like that. Please also note that the overlap with / repetition of other articles is not minor, and the alternative articles (that could and should be improved) are listed.--Gregalton (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a review of a notable book on the subject. Please indicate the existing article that covers this topic better and in the appropriate depth. Monetary History of the United States just covers the book.Colonel Warden (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a candidate article that doesn't overlap: Economic history of the United States. It doesn't even cover Bimetallism. There's a lot of work to be done here and deletion would not help. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

* off-topic.. thanks for cleaning up the article Colonel ... I copied lots of the formatting from a different economics article that Gregalton disputed.. that article seemed to be based on (obsure?) austrian economists, so a lot of the "See also" is probably misplaced in this article. Still learning my way around editing. Thanks BigK HeX (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• "a great well constructed article" does not seem to be favoring only notability BigK HeX (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and Rewrite Clearly a notable topic, but needs major rewrite for NPOV and to follow encyclopedia style. Joshdboz (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Checking just now, the article seems to be getting good attention from editor(s). Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2008 (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.