Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International dollar

International dollar

International dollar was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.

Suspected to be original research. Delete unless verified. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 23:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, even I was surprised. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 07:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete unless verified. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:05, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Per Talk:International_dollar#There_is_an_.22international_dollar.22, it is (more or less) verified, although it sure is murky. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:52, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but revert to this version, and remove the spurious later additions. The article was originally about a serious, notable subject but it appears to have been hijacked to promote someone's wacky ideas for a world currency. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk ]] 01:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I have boldly done the reversion myself, and vote keep. If anybody can verify any of the information deleted during this reversion, feel free to add it. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 02:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, and agree with the reversion. It's a genuine concept in macroeconomics and foreign trade, but there is a great deal of speculative original research tacked on now. Geogre 02:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The economic concept is certainly verifiable. It is, for example, the common reporting measure used by the United Nations Statistics Division (see [1]). I can find no source verifying the plans for an international currency as described in the now reverted section of this article but even if those plans are verified, they are in the wrong place. Rossami (talk) 03:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, the concept's been around for a long time. Wyss 13:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but an economist needs to sort out the article. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I would have no idea about this concept without this page CoolGuy 04:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, It seems that all people are for keeping it (the current revision), so why not remove the deletion-vote-boxAlinor 13:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.