Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Net settlement

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Net settlement

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a stub but the process of net settlement is not a dictionary definition. As WP:NOTDIC says, “[o]ne perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiachra10003 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDICTIONARY - it seems to be covered in sources in the wider context of banking and accounting terms, there are no indepth sources on Net settlement itself - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even wrong, this is an obscure, ordinary glossary term in banking. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Payment system. The topic is covered in more depth in books on payment systems and/or Settlement theory (article lacking; there are whole books on settlement theory for bankers). See these google books: [1], [2], [3], etc.4meter4 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Seems correct. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a dictionary article as there's no focus upon grammar, particular words or other linguistic aspects. This is instead a stub about a notable matter of finance which covered in detail in numerous sources. There's perhaps a case for merger with a related topic such as set-off (law) but that's not done by deletion; it's done by ordinary editing per WP:MAD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely discussed in books on banking payment systems, such as Transforming Payment Systems: Meeting the Needs of Emerging Market Economies, Payment Systems: Principles, Practice, and Improvements, and The Payment System: Design, Management, and Supervision. Easily meets GNG. SpinningSpark 22:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of the arguments for delete being put forward here are baffling;

The idea that because this is a payment system, and is always discussed as a payment system, it should therefore be merged to payment system really does not hold any water. Everything is a part of something else. If we followed that principle we would merge all articles to Big Bang which would then read something like "there was a Big Bang which eventually led to things like the Roman Empire, uranium, and chickens."
Interestingly, the payment system that net settlement is invariably compared to is real-time gross settlement. That article shows what this one could become with a bit of work.
The criticism "not even wrong" implies that it can't be falsifiable, which is clearly false, and in any case, is not a valid deletion rationale. We have plenty of articles on things that are not falsifiable – Occam's razor for instance.
"obscure, ordinary glossary term". Andrew has already adequately answered the glossary part of that (this article is not just a definition of a term). "Obscure" and "ordinary" are not policy-based reasons for deletion, and I'm pretty sure that the term is far from obscure in banking circles. In any case, Wikipedia is not just for articles on stuff everybody already knows.

SpinningSpark 23:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like a reasonable stub, except for the fact that the in-article sourcing sucks, but SpinningSpark has found some good sources. Policy only requires that sources exist, not that they actually be in the article; I hope, however, that Spark actually does put in the effort to improve the article based on the research he's done. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2019 (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.