Deletion of Separation of money and state

Comment: Admitedly this article deserves |improvement. Have you looked at the Talk:Separation_of_money_and_state|talk page? I have posted the explanation as to how the topic differs from free banking, and suggestions on ways to improve it. It would have been interesting for a discussion to occur there. In a nutshell, here is the rationale
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: Another effort to stitch together through |original research and synthesis a concept which folks feel ''deserves to be notable'' but which does not presently exist as a coherent topic in the literature, other than as a vivid slogan
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (:WP:OR)

Comment: to Austrian School. The term "''separation of money and state''" gives very few hints on google books and google news. I have heard ''separation of economy and state'' from Ayn Rand in an interview with Mike Wallace in the 50s (its on youtube). But still, the term itself isn't enough widespread to be considered notable for its own article. The economists who want or wanted this are sympathetic to the Austrian school of economics, so thats why it should be redirected there. I also remind everyone not to 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)

Comment: It's true some (not all) austrian economists have argued in favor of separation, but they are not the only ones. Objectivists have hinted at it too (as you correctly mention, although Rand rather advocates a gold standard), but also electronic currency advocates, anarchists, or simply free-market commentators (e.g. http://www.econlib.org/library/Leggett/lgtDE3.html'''Leggett''', http://www.wepin.com/why/products/natf/natf.html'''Riegel''', http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/10/04/bitcoin-prevents-monetary-tyranny'''Forbes''', etc.). The topic is adjacent to classical liberalism, monetary sovereignty, free banking, ... but it is equivalent to none of these. As per the notability argument I don't understand given the numerous reliable sources that exist (and more to come, I'm still going through other sources to cite them appropriately). I acknowledge it is a marginal claim, but notable nonetheless (over 60k Web http://www.google.ch/#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22separation+of+money+and+state%22&oq=%22separation+of+money+and+state%22&gs_l=hp.3..0i30.1017.4019.0.4163.31.26.0.0.0.0.220.4008.0j23j3.26.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.hp.ZpfvDbbUca8&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41867550,d.Yms&fp=c45f5bf549e43f24&biw=1280&bih=638'''hits''' and over 100 book http://www.google.com/search?q=%22separation+of+money+and+state%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=EN'''hits''' on the exact sentence). Again I think  does not call for outright deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: per OrangeMike and .  This is a hot mess
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: The article fails to establish that there is any clearly-defined meaning for this phrase.  The lede states that the subject is not the same as '''free banking''', but it provides  no positive exposition of its meaning.  Instead, the narrative is replete with (naive and corrigible) ,  and non-RS citations, largely to ideas and subjects that are only tangential to the purported subject of the article. Numerous citations fail verification. Despite numerous tags clearly indicating its flaws, the article has not been improved.  Various searches fail to show widespread use of this term, and if any  literature on the subject is found, such information belongs in other articles, e.g. Free Banking.  ''Separation of money and state'' does not warrant a separate article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:RS)