Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freegold

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freegold

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability demonstrated . All sources which use the word Freegold are from a single blogger. All other refs make no mention of Freegold but talk about related monetary issues. Looks like a particular blogger neologism and original research Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete an absolute mess of original research, terrible writing and non-notable concepts. I edited out the author's attempts to talk to other editors in the main body of the text itself, but left the "lack of sources" section intact because I'm not sure exactly what it was referring to. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree that the references cited do not validate the concept of freegold at all. Tashif (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the author; The concept freegold is quite hard to understand, as explained in the article. Meaning the references are - to most people - found difficult to digest and understand, let alone if they are superficially scanned. Example: the works of Another, Foa and Fofoa combined (see article) are 10 years worth of high level macro economic and geopolitical writing, to fully explain freegold. That all may leave the impression the references are single sourced or found unverifiable. Another example to illustrate my point: who can actually read the balance sheet of one of the world's most important central banks? Everyone can read the numbers, but how many people can interpret the numbers, let alone reason what that means in a monetary sense in various economical conditions? On the discussion I do appreciate arguments to be specific. Rd2c (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not OR exactly, because the theory does exist outside Wikipedia, but only as the postings of anonymous bloggers, placing their own work on the web. We go by the sources, not the intrinsic merit of the theories, and these postings are a classic example of unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would you delete it ?! The anonymous blogger was Ferdinand Lips, he passed away, and that is why he stopped writing. F.L. could not use his initials because he had too much influence in the creation of the Euro. If you want source : add the book : Gold Wars. (Gold Wars. The Battle Against Sound Money. As Seen From A Swiss Perspective) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.108.84 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added ref, thanks. Rd2c (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.