Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One dollar Federal Reserve Note

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 REDIRECT to U.S. one dollar bill. I'm not an expert in this, but I think that everything is already in the target article. It's all in the history if I missed something, though. -Splash^talk 21:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One dollar Federal Reserve Note

There's no reason for this article to exist. Much of it is a doppleganger of U.S._one_dollar_bill, an article about the exact same piece of currency. Tom Lillis 02:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Re-direct to U.S. one dollar bill. Georgia guy 02:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect Gazpacho 02:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, redirect, though i seriously doubt this redirect will ever be used for practical reasons. RabidMonkeysEatGrass, It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine (and I know you will feel fine, too) 02:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to U.S. one dollar bill. Of course, when I was a kid, there were, let me see if I've got this right... two different kinds of one-dollar bills: silver certificates with, um, um, um, let's see today's Federal Reserve notes have green Treasury seals so the Silver Certificates must have been blue... and United States Notes, which had red treasury seals. For some reason I don't believe there were $1 Federal Reserve Notes at that time. IIRC only the five dollar bill actually came in all three different flavors: Federal Reserve Notes, Silver Certificates, and United States Notes. Isn't that interesting? No? You say it's boring? Never mind... Dpbsmith (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to U.S. one dollar bill - only significant difference is in the preamble, which should be included (somewhere) in a U.S. Currency history or U.S. Currency: Notes heading, to elaborate and illustrate points mentioned by dpbsmith. B.Wind 03:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Merge with U.S. one dollar bill - was going to vote keep, but saw other comments. Zordrac (talk) Darwikinist, wishy washy and Eventualist 03:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since nothing here is not in U.S. one dollar bill. A redirect isn't need since it is a very unlikely search. Peyna 03:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect this odd adventure because redirects are fun and cheap - also, if any material from this article is merged into a U.S. one dollar bill, the redirect preserves the GFDL. BD2412 T 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect An article for this just the $1 FRN is highly unnecessary. Infact, I'm currently rewriting the U.S. one dollar bill article and should be done by this weekend. --Kurt 04:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to U.S. one dollar bill.--MONGO 06:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC) In looking all this over, there is a minor distinction that may be noted. I have yet to determine if I now support merge or a keep vote, but would prefer at least a merge and collaboraton between Paul Hanson and Kurt.--MONGO 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and comment As originator of this article, I will provide an explanation. (One is certainly warranted, and I agree that the case for a separate article isn't immediately apparent.) A Federal Reserve Note is, as most of you know, different from a Silver Certificate or a United States Note, however $1 notes (and other denominations) have been issued in all three of these forms, as well as others. Yes, it is certainly possible to smush them all together in one page about the $1 note, but there are several very distinct issues of that note, and considering the a) interest numismatists would have in the topic and b) ease and cheapness of including more info and detail on a separate page, I strongly think this page (and others like it) should be kept. I of course would have created articles for the other denominations and other series of notes. Having this would make Wikipedia a highly authoritative source on the history of U.S. currency (an area in which I am greatly interested, as you no doubt could tell) just as it is a respected source of information on other topics. Please, keep this article and let me work on improving it further. If the entire series draws the wrath of the WP public, then ditch it--redirecting it back to the old article is easy. Give it a chance, though. Thank you to all for discussing this and wikilove to all. Paul 14:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Kurt above. I'd have been WP:BOLD myself, but fair enough to come here for a second opinion I guess. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• More comments While I'm on the subject, I'll share a few other thoughts. Firstly, there are articles for each type of United States dollar coin, and the article for the note could easily be modeled after this one. Secondly, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a "U.S. one dollar bill"-yes, that's what everyone calls it, but hairsplitting aside, our readers deserve a precisely titled article describing what the thing actually is (what it looks like, who issued it, and what its role in the history of the U.S. economy is--each note has a different story.) Continuing in that vein, the history of U.S. paper money is far too rich to be condensed into one article for each denomination - images of each issue could be presented on the article about it - and far more information could be presented (images of every one dollar note would clutter up a single article...put the first and most recent on the main article and the others in their own!) Anyway, please consider the usefulness of this article and the ones like it, and I look forward to working on them. Paul 14:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

First: naming convention is that articles go under the most common name, not the most technically correct name. Second, everything should go into the single article on the one-dollar bill until it gets too big, for two reasons: this is an encyclopedia, not a desk encyclopedia or a Britannica 3 "Micropaedia" and articles should follow summary form, starting with the basics and getting deeper; second, splitting articles tends to result in much unnecessary repetitive material. For example, if you have one article you can describe the Treasury seal and in depth and then say "the Treasury seal on the United States note is similar but printed in red" without having to describe it all again... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, although I believe the differences between the different notes are more subtle and more significant than just the color of the treasury seal. And yes, you are right that the most common name is better than the most technical one--99% of Americans wouldn't know a US note from an FRN, and therefore just calling the thing a one dollar note is useful in clarifying. However, if you look at the one dollar coin article, I think you will see information on that very large topic (in terms of how many different coins there actually are) structured in a clear and informative manner. That is how I strongly advocate we proceed with the articles on notes. As far as repetitive material, that would only be a problem if the superficial differences between the notes are described. If more useful information is included, than that will cease to be an issue. Paul 15:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Dpsmith hit it on the head: there should be a section in U.S. Currency that can describe the various types of currency (United States Note vs. Federal Reserve Note vs. Silver Certificate vs. Gold Certificate) that generally covers all the denominations (and can use different denominations in its pictures) instead of slicing and dicing it so thinly as to make it useless. Wikipedia would be better served concentrating on having these note types in one heading and the history of the design of the currency in each of the denominations' sections/articles instead. 147.70.242.21 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Now undecided - current content is good and should not be lost; whether that's a merge or keep I wouldn't like to say. I explicitly do not buy the "cruft justifies more cruft" argument but this article does have encyclopaedic content of some emrit, even if the numerology bit is somewhat overdone (I'd say 13 letters in E Pluribus Unum is coincidence, not numerology, unless anyone can prove otherwise?) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per Dpbsmith. --TantalumTelluride 23:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect until such space is required to sustain a sperate article, which I believe is not far off considering the rapid expanse and exposure of the WikiProject Numismatics. Many members now seem to have a priority interest in currency(bills/banknotes), including myself. The many different types of American currency are identifiably seperate from each other. An all-in-one article should be complete with individual sub-articles when information amount is increased. Joe I 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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.