Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese lunar coins

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.

Chinese lunar coins

Chinese lunar coins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This doesn't appear to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 19:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The notability is there (random assortment of first stuff I saw, there's likely better sourcing out there):

• "面值"一元"卖百元？当心，这类龙年纪念钞买不得-新华网". www.news.cn. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
• 郁祥桢 (1995). 钱币丛谈 (in Chinese). 上海古籍出版社.
  ISBN 978-7-5325-1852-4
  .
• "【纪念币面面观】纪念币上的中国龙_中国银行保险报网". www.cbimc.cn. Retrieved 2024-03-04.

Only problem is that the entire article is unsourced... (which is why this is not a "keep") Jumpytoo Talk 05:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article just needs to be cleaned up (adding sources). Abstrakt (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Are the sources added to the article sufficient?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Interesting topic, but trying to rescue this by adding one footnote to a cite of dubious reliablity where we have two paragraphs of text that look like advertising ([1]) is hardly useful. This seems like an interesting and plausibly notable topic, but the current exceution is terrible, and there is even no interwiki to Chinese article to judge if this is better covered there. The article is also linked from the body of only one article (unreferenced) and as a see also. Sigh. Ping me if better sources are found - right now it is hard to be sure the topic is notable, and certainly
  WP:OR is a major issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep because the sources listed by Jumpytoo and added by LeapTorchGear to the article show that Chinese lunar coins meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.

  Cunard (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2024 (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.