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.
Non-notable failed bill. Unlike
NESARA, it (and any fictional counterparts) do not have significant commentary in reliable or notable sources. Almost all the article is interpretation of the text of the bill sourced to the bill, and some commentary about the subject of the bill (eliminating
fractional reserve banking), not the bill, itself. I have seen little evidence that there is anything else. I would add that the fact, mentioned on the article talk page, the bill was proposed in previous sessions of Congress should be in the article, but I'm not sure that we can find a reliable source for that, either. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Generally agree with nominator. Major problems with article include
original research and extreme reliance on
primary sources. I did a web search and found little; there was an op-ed piece in the
Huffington Post. There was discussion in the
Epoch Times which looks like a fringe publication; the Washington Post had a vote tally
here. Not much else, suggesting to me it does not meet the
general notability guideline, but I may change my vote if more sources can be found, and the article trimmed substantially.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk) 13:57, 9 June 2014 (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.