Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scripophily

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 Keep and tag for improvements, as sending to draft space might just result in a CSD G13 deletion in six months. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scripophily[edit]

[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)

There exists few sources for its notability, only two websites (Investopedia and a scripophily association), and no sources whatsoever at the page itself (though there are external links). Also, the guidelines section smacks of a guide (as in NOTGUIDE). I recommend deletion, without prejudice to redirect (as it is a real concept) or rewrite. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, History, and Business. jp×g 03:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This is a real hobby that we should have an article about, but currently this article has no inline citations. There are sources out there to cite (see [1] and [2], for example). Let's send this to draftspace until the article is properly cited. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as above. This is a well-established hobby, but we need to re-work the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for improvement -- This is legitimate article on a legitimate subject. I entirely agree that it needs a lot more references, but the appropriate remedy for such an article is to tag it for improvement, not to delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it is not well-sourced, I agree that this is a legitimate subject. I'm doubtful though about sending a 19 year old article to Draft space. That might just result in a CSD G13 deletion in six months. I think it'll will get more attention in main space and alerting relevant WikiProjects than being hidden away in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag – Meets notability guidelines per source searches. Then, place the {{Copy edit}} and {{Cleanup AfD}} templates atop the article, and notify WikiProject Numismatics at its talk page about the matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag per the arguments above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify : meets notability. Needs a rework from draftspace and can improve inline citation. Poppified ^talk 17:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 30 July 2022 (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.