Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Currency Foundation

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 '. Article will be userfied per the consensus of this discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The National Currency Foundation

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

Promotional content lacking established notability in accordance with WP:ORG or general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Note that the sources provided in this article relate to numistatics and affiliated organizations. A search for reliable and independent sources has been lacking. Cindy(talk to me) 13:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations included in the article are from the main news periodical for paper numismatics and include mention of the National Currency Foundation and its role in advancing research and education in the paper currency field. In addition, the following link (mediocre) connects The National Currency Foundation with the Smithsonian Institution [1]. The article's specific description of the Foundation's role with the Smithsonian Institution was drafted by the Smithsonian's Public Relations Department. A private email from the division curator could be provided as proof, but would not be appropriate as a public citation.Godot13 (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hi Godot13! In answer to your question on my talkpage, this is what I see. Your article is highly promotional and reads like an advertisement for the organization. For example, take a look at the first section under Educational Goals. None of this content is encyclopedic. It appears that this article was written merely to promote awareness of the organization. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. We can establish notability by showing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Let's take a look at the 19 sources used. Ten are citations using the organization's website or the National Bank Note Census, which is maintained by the subject. An assessment of the other sources:
  - http://americanhistory.si.edu/numismatics/ (does not mention the subject)
  - http://numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?article&ArticleId=21314 (does not mention the subject)
  - http://numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?article&ArticleId=25302 (conference plenary lacking independence and significant coverage)
  - http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?article&ArticleId=26137 (content about the org, but it was written by Huntoon, who is an employee/researcher of sorts working with the org, so fails independence)
  - https://www.spmc.org/sister-organizations (merely lists the subject as a "sister organization" and provides a link to the org's website)
  - http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2012/12/19/34121/ (press release about the president of the org merely stating that he founded the org)
  - http://www.money.org/communications/press-releases/archives/2012-press-releases/peter-huntoon-awarded-honorary-doctorate-of-numismatics.aspx (press release, does not mention the subject)
  - http://www.thehigginsmuseum.org/jhickman.htm (does not mention the subject)
  - http://www.coinworld.com/Articles/ViewArticle/don-kelly-sells-rights-to-national-bank-note- (does not mention the subject)
  - In essence, we haven't yet established notability. There is a lack of significant sources that meet the threshold for reliability and independence. If you have more questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 03:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cindy-

Your points are well made. I beg to differ on a few, but in general I understand what you are saying. The only reason I provided citations for the names of those in the field was in an attempt to demonstrate their qualifications and lay some historical context for the NCF’s work. Under Educational Goals (really just the subsection about Visual Exhibits) my intent was not to promote but to provide examples of NCF’s work, but it is possible the end result was the same. I think this could be re-worked in order to make it more encyclopedic and less of a list of available exhibits. Perhaps the only link/citation in that (re-worked) section would be to the Exhibit page of the NCF site and let readers figure it out from there.
It may be that this organization is simply too young to have acquired the necessary coverage to meet the notability requirements; therefore fixing the issue above would still not resolve the discussion over deletion. I reviewed the notability criteria again and realize that the supporting material is largely circumstantial and a bit thin.
So I (as someone who will continue to write entries) have a better understanding for the future, and using the present article as an example, would the following generally go towards notability: 1) Listing of the NCF on the Smithsonian Institution’s Affiliates Website? This would mean that the NCF would be approved (with an appropriate exhibit space) to borrow objects and create exhibits; 2) a detailed description of the NCF’s activities in a numismatic publication? 3) A detailed description in a non-numismatic publication? When I mention publication here I am referring to either peer-reviewed publications or the main stream newspapers (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal).
If this is going to be deleted, may I revise and resubmit when there is more support for notability? Thanks- Godot13 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - (1) Being an affiliate of the Smithsonian does not establish notability as that is not inherited. (2) Notability in general requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Without actually seeing the souces, it is a bit of a guessing game. If there multiple articles, and the publisher is deemed a reliable source, and the author/source of the article is independent of the organsiation, then the answer is generally yes. (3) See answer to 2. As for resubmitting in the future, there is no bar to creating the article later if the organisation gains coverage over time. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly unrelated question as I am new to all this: can a user have more than one sandbox at a time to work on multiple pieces?Godot13 (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Coverage about the organisation is insubstantial and fail to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. The organisation was founded in in June 2011 so it a relatively new. No prejudice to recreation in the future if the coverage changes. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy - Based on comments at Godot13's talk page, I will amend my !vote to userfication. -- Whpq (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am amenable to Userfy until such time (which may not come) as this article and the organization meets notability criteria. Godot13 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. I'm fine with it being userfied, of course. SarahStierch (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per everyone above. There's nothing in this that should keep it out of the userspace, and Godot13 has expressed willingness to keep working on it and get it up to standards. delldot ∇. 03:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy with the proviso that if improvement is not made in 1 year that the article be nominated for XfD from the userspace as a failed draft. Hasteur (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy. Even a quick read of the opening reveals that this is a commercial, not an Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2013 (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.