Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elimination of the penny
Appearance
Elimination of the penny
- Elimination of the penny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about the removal of the Penny from circulation from several nations. The article seems to be a content fork. The subject is already covered in each nations specific article on the penny Canada,Australia etc. The external link is a POV site with an agenda which makes this article in it entirety look like a push for this agenda. What this boils down to is this article offers no further information then what is already available in other articles. The only references only speak to the Canadian event. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- No article is perfect at the time they are created. I, or others, will improve it later. Huritisho 01:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete the amount of content in the individual articles is not significant enough to merit forking them completely to a new article. I've removed the elink for blatant POV pushing. Primefac (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Primefac: I intend to improve the article, if, you know, you let me to Huritisho 01:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Huritisho, this discussion will proceed for a minimum of seven days, and in that time I would be surprised if you didn't continue editing the page. An AFD nomination is not a guaranteed deletion, and I have seen nominations overturned when the article was sufficiently improved. Of course, copyright violations are serious business, and continuing to add them in will definitely result in deletion of the page. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Hm fine. I'll improve it tomorrow. I urgently need to go out for a beer right now. Cheers. Huritisho 01:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Huritisho, this discussion will proceed for a minimum of seven days, and in that time I would be surprised if you didn't continue editing the page. An AFD nomination is not a guaranteed deletion, and I have seen nominations overturned when the article was sufficiently improved. Of course, copyright violations are serious business, and continuing to add them in will definitely result in deletion of the page. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, soapboxing, factual errors, supposedly reliable sources that don't know what they're talking about and don't cover the elimination of pennies in general in any detail. Basically unsalvageable. If this is a valid article topic in the first place, which I rather doubt, WP:TNT applies. Huon (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Huon: What?? You're not even going to give me some time to improve the article? How is an article supposed to be good in the first day after it is created? Also, why not at least merge it in penny? Huritisho 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Because there's nothing worth merging. Starting over from scratch would be easier than to try and salvage this article - if it's a valid topic in the first place, which I doubt. Huon (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Starting over from scratch? It is one paragraph long. And how come it is not a valid topic? There are tons of sources for the erradication of the penny Huritisho 01:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Because there's nothing worth merging. Starting over from scratch would be easier than to try and salvage this article - if it's a valid topic in the first place, which I doubt. Huon (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Huon: What?? You're not even going to give me some time to improve the article? How is an article supposed to be good in the first day after it is created? Also, why not at least merge it in penny? Huritisho 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like a content fork to me. Hard to see any value here. Obviously it's a recent addition, and creator should consider using their sandbox in the future. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Legal tender#Withdrawal from circulation which has the potential to cover this matter with an international focus. Article as it stands is misleading as Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands have never (to my knowledge) had coins named 'pennies'; and the Australia and New Zealand pennies were eliminated at decimalisation and replaced by equivalent coins (which in New Zealand, at least, were never referred to as 'pennies'). Daveosaurus (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect Penny#Origin and history of development feels like the best outcome to me. But a separate article is evidently inappropriate as with many above. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)