Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Chatham Islands numismatics

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 of the debate was keep revised article. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Chatham Islands numismatics

Looks like original research. Fallsend 02:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Fallsend 02:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Huh? Delete. Signed essays like this are usually original research. -R. fiend 05:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes,this is original research.It has been an ongoing project since late 2003. -User:Aidan Work

• Comment. And therefore not for Wikipedia. See What Wikipedia is not, Section 1.3. - Dalbury (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR.--Isotope23 19:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original reasearch, per WP:NOT. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Made some more edits. Now it's a Keep. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have had some very good reviews from people in the numismatic trade over here in New Zealand.It has been accepted for publication in an issue of the Coin News,which is published by Token Publishing,England.I haven't been told when it will be published,but it will eventuate. - User:Aidan Work

• Delete - original research. If this gets published and is kept, it's a copyvio. Bjelleklang - talk 00:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bjelleklang,it would not be a copyright violation,because as the author,I have the moral & legal right to reproduce the article. -User:Aidan Work

If Aidan is the copyright owner, then hence he can GPL or anything he likes to it. If it gets published in a magazine, and Aidan states that it has never been published before, then that is a problem, but for Aidan/Magazine, not for wikipedia. Similarly Aidan cannot give the magazine total exclusive copyright, as Aidan would already have GPL'ed the wiki version. Again that is a problem for Aidan, not wiki. Best that he inform the magazine at time of submission. Sumburgh 09:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Add source-based research references and Keep: The article has not been wikified, needs to be tidied, esp. a space character after punctuation marks. It needs more cross reference to source of information to ensure it is genuine information. If it has these, then it seems reasonable that the page is allowed.

The current guidelines are: Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_original_research

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

There is dedication: "Dedicated to the memory of the late W.H.(Bill) Lampard" which I am not sure is allowed, maybe in the talk page??

There is some self promotion: "Aidan Work was born in Wanganui,New Zealand on the 23rd of November 1976.He has been an active numismatist", which could be dropped, but my initial feeling is that the bulk of this article is actually fact. Quoting source document, and source news paper article would help confirm this feeling.

There are many other similar articles of "original content" without any kind of reference to and "existing primary and/or secondary source" eg. The town of Grutness in the Shetlands. The only thing that distinguishes Aidan article it that it is longer then normal, any has been contributed without being wikified. It is mostly gathered facts and data.

Given that Aidan is a clearly a first time wiki contributor, what say we give him a hand get the data he has gathered into an "source-based research" acceptable form. Lets not shoot him down on his first major contribution.

Sumburgh 09:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'm with User:Sumburgh on this this. Part of the problem here is that Aidan has self-identified this as 'original research'. That threw me at first. I think he is using research in the sense of 'literature search', and didn't know of the use in What Wikipedia is not. He appears to have built this article from primary sources, which is rare in Wikipedia, and to be encouraged. - Dalbury (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree. This is a very little-known subject, but is worthy of an article if written properly. It may even be that Aidan Work is the world expert on the subject. However, the article needs to be written in a Wikipedia-0friendly (i.e., encyclopaedic) way (One minor point BTW - the article that Sumburgh mentions did have an external source: a map showing the place mentioned. I have now added a second one - ironically from a page on Sumburgh). Grutness...wha? 11:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I would prefer the "original research" from WP:NOT to get renamed to "original speculation," which seems to me to go to the heart of the matter. Articles on encyclopedic subjects are not disqualified just because their author includes research he got from primary sources. This seems to be an encyclopedic, if obscure, subject; and Wikipedia is not paper. Smerdis of Tlön 16:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs some tidying, some pictures etc, but that makes it a candidate for Peer review, not AfD.-gadfium 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep'. Rename as Chatham Island numismatics, rewrite it to good encyclopedic standard, enhance presentation with a couple of pics, and this could be a good entry in Wiki. Also, I agree with User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön. Moriori 19:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree for the move (after the AfD is closed). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Chatham Island numismatics, as above. I don't see any speculation engaged here; further references required. Josh Parris # 04:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• It has to be kept as 'History of Chatham Islands numismatics',as there are no longer any coins or banknotes being issued for the Chatham Islands.Besides,the name 'Chatham Island' is the name of the largest island,which is where the settlements of Waitangi & Owhenga are. - (Aidan Work 06:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC))
  • Comment. Typically, we have articles on History of X only if we also have articles on X. The fact that the Chatham Islands are not issuing any other notes is not important here. Note also that the numismatics is the study of money; the title history of numismatics therefore means the history of the study of money of the Chatham Islands, while the article is on the history of money of the Chatham Islands. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep and move to Chatham Islands currency including adding info on when the islands started using New Zealand money (as they do now) BL kiss the lizard 05:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. My understanding from the article is that the Chatham Island currency was issued alongside NZ currency, although that perhaps could be clarified. - Dalbury (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per the reasoning of Smerdis of Tlön. Myself, I have always interpreted 'original research' as applying to either either an individual's subjective interpretation of a thing/event or the results of a first-hand experiment that haven't been subject to peer review. This doesn't fit either one. It's pretty much impossible to write a truly encyclopedic article on a subject without citing primary sources, so banning that practice would be self-contradictory (and asinine). -Colin Kimbrell 17:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I did directly mention that the Chatham Islands notes were issued to circulate along with New Zealand currency. - (Aidan Work 05:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

• Are you crazy? This is a great article.

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.