Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018 (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the page is fully protected I'm doing this for User:SPECIFICO. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Aside from the statement that this event occurred and that the referendum was defeated, this article consists entirely of OR, UNDUE, SYNTH association of unrelated events, and COATRACK snippets of opinion and fringe advocacy. The referendum, having been defeated last week, is now listed in Swiss referendums, 2018. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This particular referendum has attracted coverage well outside Switzerland, so there is no reason to kill the dedicated article. The rejection of the initiative at the ballot box does not change its notability, which was established at the prior AfD merely two months ago. — JFG talk 12:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What RS discussion of this referendum (beyond passing mentions) can you cite to establish notability? There is none in the current article after all attempts to salvage it? SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CambridgeBayWeather, this is getting annoying. It was already G5ed once and AfDed twice. Look in the history. Less that a third of the content comes from the sock. If you hadn't protected the page, I would have reverted you. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I tagged it and didn't straight up delete it. Some one else can check and see if it should be deleted or not. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@L293D:
As a matter of fact, most of the content is from the sockpuppet. It's just that whenever any of several editors removed it, the bad content was edit-warred back into the article by a highly-motivated colleague. All the content and sourcing has been impeached at some length on the talk page. Also, this is only the second AfD. The listing of #2 above is an artifact of its having been protected. And editors in the previous AfD said this should be reviewed after the referendum, which has now failed and which failure, combined with the ongoing insistence on bad content poorly sourced, led to the current AfD. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're not dealing with socks here. It has been already established that the subject of the 2018 Swiss referendum about sovereign money possessed independent notability. That was demonstrated by sources already in the article and sources provided during the last AfD process. I'm obliged by this silly nomination to again quote a sample of them. Look down below. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CambridgeBayWeather, you do realize that your G5-based nomination for a speedy deletion is actually baseless, do you? WP:G5 states, with emphasis added just so that you see your mistake, [Speedy deletion] applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on account of subject clearly possessing independent notability. And, before we hear the tired argument about "notability fading away", please note that notability is not temporary.
Sources in addition to those in the article that show independent notability of the sovereign-money 2018 referendum: The Daily Telegraph ("Switzerland to vote on banning banks from creating money"); Global Finance ("Swiss To Vote On Reclaiming Fiat Power"); Reuters ("Sovereign money scheme would hurt Swiss economy"); Handelsblatt ("Castrating the Banks"); The Economist ("Shake your money makers"); Bloomberg Businessweek ("Why Swiss Vollgeld Vote Has the Central Bank Nervous"); Forbes ("Swiss Monetary Reform Referendum Is, Sadly, Driven By Ill Informed Loons"); Le Temps ("Les partisans de l'initiative «Monnaie pleine» lancent la campagne"); Die Tageszeitung ("Vollgeld, voll geil?"); La Repubblica ("Svizzera, un referendum contro privatizzazione della moneta e finanzcapitalismo"). There's more. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why this needs to be deleted. Nobody disputes that the referendum occurred. But nothing indicates its WP:NOTABLE and our readers will find the vote count at the Swiss referendums article. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those sources, along with tons of others, do NOT, of course, just prove the referendum actually occurred (their text was written before the referendum anyway!) but demonstrate how important it was, and the potential consequences an adoption of the proposal would bring. Quite solid stuff. But, we already know where you stand, by now, dear SPECIFICO. It would save us a lot of time if you just said "I hate this". -The Gnome (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Searches in other languages, in addition to German, with Vollgeld, bring up, as expected, many hits. In Switzerland itself, there have been numerous television shows, which are unfortunately unavailable online (except for maybe a couple), instigated mainly by the financial community. Pre-referendum the polls were showing how this would end up but no one could be certain. What if the voters were suddenly to decide to upend everything? -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said last time, yes, a loony idea by loons, etc, and it was accordingly rejected. But as noted above, the initiative and its result wasn't only covered in great detail in Swiss national media (see my comment in the last AfD for that), but also in international media. If that isn't notable, nothing on Wikipedia is notable. I really don't understand what the nominator is trying to accomplish here. If the article is deficient in terms of OR, etc (which is very possible given that this is about the economic equivalent of fringe science), then that can and should be remedied by editing. The German article is significantly better and not, as the nominator writes, just a collection of press snippets. Sandstein 17:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: The article, despite all efforts to improve it, currently gives us RS-cited content only to state that the initiative existed and was defeated. As others have said, that content could have been merged with the general coverage of Swiss Refernda here. To respond to your question, then, despite the earlier AfD and several editors challenging all the OR, COATRACK and other bad content, the only upshot was that one editor kept adding the bad stuff back to such an extent that we now have page protection with all that stuff intact. Now, thanks to @Power-enwiki and Goethean: I see that there is at least some RS discussion of the referendum under a search for Vollgeld. That would never have come to light without this AfD. I'm no longer convinced that this should be deleted and I consider that a very positive outcome for this AfD, one that was manifestly impossible with the editing having degenerated into a senseless repetitive pushing of all the bad edits. I don't get your point about the German article. If you were referring to me I meant to say that the English WP article is a collation of POV snippets. I have not read the German article. Anyway, your visits here have been constructive. Thanks. I do hope you'll help clean up the bad stuff from the English article. Frankly, aside from degrading WP, it also presents the appearance that there has been no intelligible mainstream discussion of the Referendum. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article, despite all efforts to improve it, currently gives us RS-cited content only to state that the initiative existed and was defeated.
But isn't that only because you have ruled that any additional context is inappropriate due to one policy or another, and repeatedly removed material which gave context to the article? — goethean 20:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was just garbage. Advocacy from blogs presented as fact, misinformation trying to link Irving Fisher to the Swiss Referendum by an author so enthusiastically misinformed that he claimed Fisher had won a "Nobel Prize" decades before such a thing existed, and general undue material about banking that was opinion unrelated to this proposition by any expert analysis, notable comment or factual link. In the links with the german search word I see better stuff, so that's good. I can't imagine why the sock who started the article and the advocates who followed her didn't just get some good content in there rather than edit-warring the useless stuff. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You ruled yourself and by yourself alone that sourced text about support to the ideas behind the referendum was "garbage" and you deleted everything! You seem to have this weird understanding about primary sources which, if we were to follow, would forbid us from having quotes from the Bible in the article about Christianity! Primary sources are not forbidden. They have their use. We do not of course use them to prove notability; we use them to present what the originators said - of an idea, an ideology, a proposal, etc. But why don't you just proclaim ""I hate that!" and save us all a lot of time? It would be a legitimate statement. -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gnome: Whoever closes this AfD will note your stark departure from Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of issuing forth threats and warnings, try to understand the nuance here: Primary sources are not forbidden in toto. They have their use. Primary sources, e.g. the autobiography of an author, are not used to prove that what the authors said is notable or that it's true. But they are used, if needed, to present what the authors said, in their own words. For more, look up WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. That is all, and as stark as it gets. -The Gnome (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the question here is notability. SPECIFICO talk 08:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. But no cigar.
You kept complaining about the article using primary sources, and started deleting them. Your justification for the unwarranted deletions was that they were primary sources. But those sources were not used to justify notability! They were and still are used to present ideas first-hand, i.e. directly from the horse's mouth, from their originators and proponents - which is a totally valid way of presenting ideas in Wikipedia. (Critical assessment is, of course, also required. But we digress.) For notability, we are obliged to use third-party, independent, reliable sources. Which we did and still do. -The Gnome (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There are quite some reputable English language sources mentioning or discussing the Swiss “Vollgeld Initiative”, which can be found when you put that string into Google Scholar. Some are linked to partisan web sites, but then the content is often by reputable scholars. --Schullerius (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you present the references you've found that would be RS citations, not just passing mentions and not primary sourced opinion? I'm not seeing any. The passing mentions of the Referendum and its date considerably weaken your case and suggest a merge to Swiss referendums 2018. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reputable sources mentioning multiple sovereign monetary reform proposals and their historical connectedness, including the Swiss Vollgeld initiative (there might be some more in the German language):
--Schullerius (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's all well and good. We know there's a large body of thought concerning money and banking, regulation, related institutions, and the economic effects of each. That's all irrelevant to the question as to whether this particular initiative -- not the general subject or the motivations and enthusiasms of its promoters -- is covered as the subject of RS discussion, commentary, analysis. So far all we have from RS is that this referendum occurred and that it was defeated. That's really all we have seen. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, sources establishing independent notability have been provided, both in the article, and on-demand afterwards during the AfD process (that does not seem it'll ever stop). A sample was again provided here above. Yet, these sources, though clearly settling the issue, are dismissed and ignored. As if pretending they do not exist will justify deletion. This is willful blindness to facts. -The Gnome (talk)
The statement by SPECIFICO that the eight sources mentioned above are merely a part of “a large body of thought concerning money and banking, regulation, related institutions, and the economic effects of each” and do not contain relevant “RS discussion, commentary, analysis” of “this particular initiative” is not a correct statement because all of the eight sources mention and/or discuss and/or analyze the Swiss sovereign money referendum within the specific context of their research concerns. I invite SPECIFICO to search within the provided sources the relevant data and then stick to his initial opening statements that these are “all well and good”. --Schullerius (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That they hold lots of them doesn't prohibit individual ones from being individually notable, given the level of sourcing that is available to support them. Beyond that, if they are suitable to remain, but might be better merged, then the correct thing is to go Keep here and discuss a merge elsewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swiss_sovereign_money_referendum,_2018_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=846949730"