Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial philately

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Financial philately

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

Unsourced, no evidence of notability, PROD removed by IP editor likely to be creator of article Melcous (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Philatelic investment: I started adding references to this article before noticing the existing and more substantial Philatelic investment article. AllyD (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melcous, why do you object to a merge or did these 2 discussions start about the same time? I think a merge and redirect looks best; do you think Philatelic investment is also not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? MartinJones (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Merge To tag was added (by me) after this AfD began. I should add that I'm not sure there is any suitable content for merging, that redirect is the better outcome in my opinion. AllyD (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real objection to a redirect, although there doesn't really seem to be much evidence available that this is a common term. And yes, as AllyD has said, the AfD began before that suggestion was raised. Melcous (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's no sources that show that this is a notable term. MartinJones (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely. This is not an established term in philately or investment as far as I am aware and Philatelic investment already covers the topic well. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research about a topic that has no coverage by that name, at least as far as Google can tell. There isn't even any specific and intelligible information in the article. Fails WP:N, and there isn't any point in a redirect to anything because, well, again, Google. This isn't a phrase people are like to be searching for. There also isn't any specific information in the article that could be usefully merged into another one. Largoplazo (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. It doesn't need to be merged because it's simply not a common term in philately and any of the information in this article appears to already be in Philatelic investment. Gargleafg (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2017 (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.