Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coinflation (2nd nomination)

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. X clamation point 04:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coinflation

poorly written and very little text Catdog4169 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the article Coinflation for deletion due to the reason it is poorly written and includes very little tex. Catdog4169 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, MAYBE Speedy in spite of the nomination. Both poorly written and "very little text" (ie: a stub) are not valid reasons for deleting an article. Sorry, please see this. In this example, notability is, as there are no sources given except the companies own website. The other source talks about coin melting, but not the "website" that is the topic of the article. TECHNICALLY, it might even pass as a SPEEDY DELETE (db|web or db|corp) since they don't even make a claim of notability, instead just saying the website exists. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, no notability asserted. How the hell did this survive the last afd? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This topic is notable, the website is not. Mystache (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G12) — " Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;" MuZemike (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The material is useful as part of our general coverage of inflation and its effect upon coinage and there are sufficient sources out there to make more of this. The article title is a useful search term and so should lead somewhere. Quite where is best I'm still not sure... Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You say keep and merge, but your argument sounds more like "delete content but change to a redirect". Are you saying that the website/company that the article is about IS notable? Otherwise, deleting the article doesn't stop the title from being used again as a redirect or another article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence that a "coin-flation" sense is in significant use apart from the Web site, although a "co-inflation" sense may have some limited use (it looks to me as though most, if not all, of these are typos for conflation, however). A redirect to Coin#The value of a coin is possible, since the phenomenon is discussed there, but I can't advocate the redirect without seeing some evidence that this term exists apart from the site name. Deor (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2008 (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.