Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown Bottom

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 Any discussion of a merger can be made on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Bottom[edit]

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

This topic is unworthy of its own article, there is no such notable expression as Brown Bottom. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I beg to differ that there is no such expression - [1] [2] [3] ArcAngel (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. For the avoidance of doubt, keep. -- Testing times (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, the first link is a blogspot and one is the times, I will look at that, however the expression Brown Bottom is not a notable one, and the issue is covered in other articles and unworthy of its own article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which other articles cover this issue to the level of detail included in this article? This article deals with two related issues - the lowest point in the value of gold for 20 years (notable, I would say) and the UK's decision to sell half of its gold reserves at that point (also notable). There are plenty of other less reliable sources using this term already. Another example.[4] -- Testing times (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article written in 2007, comments, now nicknamed the “Brown Bottom” by dealers as it says, the nickname was perhaps taken up by people involved but it is not notable and not commonly known or used. This is well covered in the brown article.Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is well covered in the brown article" - presumably you mean the two sentences in Gordon Brown, before I added another one? The old ones used to read:

Between 1999 and 2002 Brown sold 60% of the UK's gold reserves at $275 an ounce. A frequent criticism of this decision was that an unprecedented rise in the gold price since has resulted in £2billion of lost potential revenue.[5]

(That reference is the same article in The Times, incidentally.) This article goes into much more detail. That is the essence of WP:Summary style-- Testing times (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again that link is a specialised gold article, what you could call bullionblog. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia is not here to take a non notable expression and give it airtime. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "now" referred to as such in 2007, and still referred to as such in 2009. The term has obtained some currency amongst gold traders - in much the same way as the ERM crisis became "Black Wednesday" - and I doubt it will go away. Some other examples:[6][7] I have two good examples from moneyweek.com - "is-it-still-worth-buying-gold-14434.aspx" and "three-sound-reasons-to-own-gold-14772.aspx" - but they are blocked by the spam filter for some reason. -- Testing times (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable and not needed, it's like some kind of content forking. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you are saying. What content is forked into this article? -- Testing times (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post your comments out of position and out of the timeline, I have added a link to the brown talk page to allow other interested users to add comments here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you have added a link from Talk:Gordon Brown. Regarding "out of position and out of the timeline", you said the same thing on my talk page (actually, you said it was "wrong and confusing"). As I said there, all of my comments have a timestamp and are appropriately indented so you can easily see who is replying to what and when. I am sorry if you find that confusing. Unfortunately, I am not aware of an easier way of arranging things. Incidentally, are you going to add links from the talk pages of the other articles that link to this one too - Talk:Gold, Talk:Market trend and Talk:Black Wednesday? -- Testing times (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another article that also uses this term from The Daily Telegraph. -- Testing times (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or preferably Merge to an existing article that pertains to information about gold and gold values. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to an article about gold/gold markets. I had not heard of the term before seeing it in the article title and I was expecting to find it in limited use mainly by blogs in political opposition to Brown. However, doing a quick Google search for "Brown Bottom" and "Brown's Bottom" I was quite surprised to find a high proportion of returns about this subject (for "Brown Bottom" there are 14 related entries out of the top 20). While most of the results are from blogs and otherwise unreliable sources it is an indicatication that the term has entered fairly common usage, though there are also a reasonable number of reliable sources to base Wiki text on. Anecdotally, I noticed that most of the ones I have found are from commentators about international economic policy or gold markets with no obvious links to UK politics, which suggests it has gone beyond the level of an attack phrase by political opponents. One thing that should be considered though is that "Brown's Bottom" seems to be a more common usage than "Brown Bottom" so it might be worth considering a rename if the article is kept. Here is another usable source I stumbled across in my search from the Birmingham Post. Road Wizard (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again that link is a piece actually advertising gold sales, this expression is not notable at all, perhaps in some corners of the gold trading community, neither has the expression been widely reported in respected sources, have a look at the title of this page Brown Bottom is this a joke? This name is absolutely not notable and the idea that there should be a wikipedia page with this title is just plain silly. Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the Birmingham Post link then calling it a "piece actually advertising gold sales" is a misrepresentation of the source. It appears to be an opinion piece published by a newspaper that discusses the trade in gold commodities; it does not try to sell a product and specifically discusses the losses that can be made on the commodity market as well as the gains. Though it is an opinion piece, the tone is politically neutral which lends weight to the proposition that the term is more than just the common political slander written about government officials.

There is no requirement for a term to be in "common use" by the public for it to be included in Wikipedia. Specialist terms primarily used in specific industries often qualify for inclusion provided that they have adequate sourcing. That this term is used by people in the gold commodity market and that we have several sources to support it means that notability for the term's inclusion has been established. Whether it qualifies for its own dedicated article or a subsection of an existing article is a slightly separate question.

Personal dislike for an article name is not a particularly strong reason for deletion. An alternative name for the article could be Gold price slump (1999 to 2002) with a redirect from Brown Bottom and Brown's Bottom. The opening sentence could be something along the lines of:

The Gold price slump (1999 to 2002) sometimes referred to as Brown's Bottom was the period from 1999 to 2002 when gold prices were the lowest for 20 years following an extended bear market.

Would a rename of the article be an acceptable solution? Road Wizard (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say merge with something is a better solution than a rename, but if you merge it there is nothing here that is not already sitting happily in other articles so it may as well be deleted. Hhere should be no redirect from browns bottom anything, it is an attack and I live in the UK and I have never heard the expression ever, brown bottom, this is an encyclopaedia not a children's comic. Oh how we larfed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, not having a strong opinion on keeping or merging the article myself, I just want to point out that "I have never heard of it" is never justification for judging an article - it's why wikipedia exists (to introduce new knowledge and expand upon what knowledge you may already have).--Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not here to publicise lesser known or not widely used expressions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a separate argument, and does not nullify what I pointed out above. As I've said, I have no strong opinion regarding this particular AfD, but having read through the arguments that one particular comment stood out as counter-intuitive. No offense intended. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it if while you were here commenting that you would have a look and comment regarding the Brown Bottom issue. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a few more sources using this term to the article, but a cursory Google or Bing will throw up dozens more. It is clearly not being used as a joke or an attack - it is an eponym. Yes, most of the sources are sites that concentrate on gold trading, but what do you expect: this is a term used mostly in that business, although the term has leaked out into the mainstream press a few times. I have also added details of the 1999 Washington Agreement on Gold (which should perhaps be moved to Central Bank Gold Agreement) which is also relevant.

I could be persuaded that Brown's Bottom (or Brown's bottom) is the right place for this - the usage seems rather mixed. Gold price slump (1999 to 2002) is not quite right - there was not a slump in 1999 to 2002, and there was a peak at the end of 1999 too: the price of gold was in the doldrums for 20 years before hitting a double trough, after which it has risen spectacularly.

Off2riorob, you say that "there is nothing here that is not already sitting happily in other articles". Which other articles contain everything in this article? -- Testing times (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this article establishes the term's notability. in any case, the decision to sell the gold is clearly a notable event and is deserving of a stand-alone article.--Pink Bull (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2009 (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.