Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twopence-farthing

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 List of British banknotes and coins. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twopence-farthing

[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 redirected this to List of British banknotes and coins as this is a very obscure coin, the text is a partial copyright violation of the source given, and the sources I find all give very little attention to this coin, just repeating the original instructions about making these. Fram (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a stub and im just an in progress editor and teh description of the picture has a fair use rationale in the desc pls check and the other problems are mainly due to the obscurity of sourecs and how early this stub is so instead can u pls juet help make the article lose the probels may helping finish it pls im a amateur editor thats jsut trying to make a new article about a notable in my opinion coin Arònel123 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – The 2¼d coin is a historically attested denomination resulting from countermarked Edward VI shillings with a portcullis stamp during Elizabeth I’s reign. While obscure, it is described in [INSERT SOURCE HERE], and part of a pair with the 4½d, which has also been independently verified. The article has been improved and sourced, and it fits into the broader historical pattern of irregular coinage following the mid-Tudor crisis. This is a real coin, not a hoax or fringe subject. It may remain a stub, but it is verifiable and historically valid, meeting Wikipedia’s notability standards for numismatics and British coinage. Deletion would remove information not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. Arònel123 (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Keep – The 2¼d coin is a historically attested denomination resulting from countermarked Edward VI shillings with a portcullis stamp during Elizabeth I’s reign. While obscure, it is described in non wikipedia palces,like auction lsitngs,evennif its only a single source ,but that's due to teh fact that this was a stube made only a day ago, and part of a pair with the 4½d, which has also been independently verified. The article has been improved and sourced, and it fits into the broader historical pattern of irregular coinage following the mid-Tudor crisis. This is a real coin, not a hoax or fringe subject. It may remain a stub, but it is verifiable and historically valid, meeting Wikipedia’s notability standards for numismatics and British coinage. Deletion would remove information not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. Arònel123 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following article for the same reasons (plus created by same editor at same time, so easier to discuss together):

Keep - Same reason as teh other coin Arònel123 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Economics, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to List of British banknotes and coins. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Shilling (British coin). Both of these are debased shilling coins that have been stamped to indicate their lower value, and there's already a bit about the debasement in the Shilling page that could be expanded with a couple of sentences to explain the new values. Even if better sourcing were found, I don't think there's enough to say about them to merit a separate page (let alone two). Adam Sampson (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit to the Shilling page about these values, with a couple of rather old refs. Adam Sampson (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find a few mentions here and there, but not much. What is the notability standard for a coin that this does not cross? Metallurgist (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG. There are many subjects without a specific notability standard. Fram (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you think would make a coin notable? Metallurgist (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG would make a coin notable. Sandstein 07:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to whichever page subject-matter experts consider appropriate. The articles do not establish notability, in addition to looking like copyvios. I've collapsed the LLM comments above. Sandstein 07:19, 12 August 2025 (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.