Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercantilism in Armenia

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 redirect‎ to Armenian merchantry to the better article about similar topic Star Mississippi 02:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mercantilism in Armenia[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)

I created the Armenian merchantry article. Smpad (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is not a reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG. terrible nom, but there are valid concerns about this article. The single general ref is to "G. Kirakosyan, M. Tavadyan, S. Grigoryan - Economics 2004", an incomplete citation and I was unable to find anything resembling it or to find anything with WP:SIGCOV supporting the topic Mercantilism in Armenia. Since there is nothing properly sourced, I see nothing that could be merged.

Under most circumstances I think writing a new article under a new name and then nominating an existing article with a similar topic to the new article (without proper discussion) is bad form, but this stark difference between the two, particularly the unsourced state of the first makes this worth considering.

Comment: @Smpad:, AFD needs nominations made according to source evaluations, and based in guidelines and policy, if you are in need of help, I would spend more time at AfD participating and reading the nominations of experienced AFD participants. Nominations can be concise (and this is often very helpful) but this nom presents no valid rationale for deletion. If there was even one plausible source, I would have !voted to procedurally close the nomination per Pppery. // Timothy :: talk 02:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you colleague, I will know it for the future. I agree with you, the article is devoid of sources, the topic is not covered and probably cannot be fully covered under such a title. With respect. Smpad (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2024 (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.