Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numista


 * 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Numista

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable website, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:WEB. The PROD was removed by Robert.stefan.m with the rationale that stop removing the page, it's the biggest coin collecting catalogue available out there. GSS (talk |c|em ) 09:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 09:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: Numista is one of the biggest Numismatic catalogs on the interent. This catalog cited as source in many Wikipedia's Numismatics related articles. Altrough, I agree that coverage of 'numista.com' on the internet is not sagnificant, Numismatics is not usually a subject of a buzz on the internet, especially resorces that are not 'english'-native. Numista is not just a website, think of it as of 'Wikipedia of coins', most of Numismatists know about it, some are actively contributing to it, but no one writes about it because, well, everyone know about it and information is public and given for free. Despite that numista.com is mentioned in the book (something that not many websites can be proud of) as one of the major sources of coin values. Website was created in 2007 and since then serves its 85k users. Article 'Numista' has been reviewed by other reviewer who didn't see any reason for article to be nominated for deletion. The reason why article was created in a first place is Numista community discussed on a forum absence of a source of neutral information about Numista, that's why author of current version of the article (me) volonteered my time to create one. Article could potentially draw attention other Numista users who will try to save an article by doing something Mr. Robert.stefan.m did, that's why article need care and help, rather than deletion. I believe with additional information added by other Wikipedia users the article is rather satisfies criteria of 'importance' to be saved. --AndriiKhmelkov (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AndriiKhmelkov (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * As the creator of the article it is reasonable that you think it should be kept, but you must be aware that we have some very strict guidelines such as WP:WEB and general notability guideline which need to be followed and I see no evidence if it passes any of them. GSS (talk |c|em ) 14:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As 'reviewer' on non-english edition of Wikipedia I'm well aware of rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. I made my case and I don't think there is a need for any further comments. To my believe reviewer who initially placed an article for quick-deletion did a poor job researching the subject of the article, at least it had to be put up for discussion first. Let's give an opportunity for other Wikipedia users to leave their opinions. Thanks --AndriiKhmelkov (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? FYI I proposed this article for deletion six hours after it was created and my "before research" (a Google "news" search) brought up only a bunch of passing mention but nothing significantly as required by WP:GNG. GSS (talk |c|em ) 15:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the notability-standards of en-wiki and Ukrainian-wiki vary by a mile or so.So, rather regretably, you're not much aware of the guidelines of en-wiki.Best, &#x222F; WBG converse 06:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like article Sabar Koti, authored by nominator requires a deletion based on WP:MUSIC. Fails most of the criterias of WP:MUSIC, has a size of dictionary entry, and rather an article for regional wiki unfortunately. It's just first article I opened to prove the point, I don't think I need to look anymore. Article Numista is ok article compared to its 'live' peers, and even if Numista fails notability of WP:WEB, 'WP:WEB' is a guideline, not a rule to blindly follow, also wikipedia's rules are full of exceptions. Problem is, user CSS tries to prove he is and was "right", I saw it many times in my Wiki-experience. Numista is used as a source in many articles in en.wiki, it's rather stupid to delete an article about the source itself. In any case, I don't care what happens now, I'm tired to fight burocracy. Just a last bit of advice: don't be biased towards others, Ukrainian-wiki is following the same set of guidelines, and there is no constant superiority is life. --AndriiKhmelkov (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Comment"-Colnect, which could be considered a similar website, has 17 refences, out of which 10 are links on Colnect itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.135.98.203 (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Any significant coverage of this is probably going to be from the numismatics periodicals. Coin World doesn't appear to have a dedicated article about the site, at least in their searchable online presence, but does cite them as an authority (for example, here). I draw a blank from the online archives of Coins/Numismatic News (they are owned by the same parent company) and COINage. As I'm not an ANA member, I cannot search the archives of Numismatist at all. I don't have a lot of faith in the online archives of several of these periodicals, hence the weakness of my opinion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete- No real evidence of notability, fails WP:WEB.  FITINDIA   19:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Several sources are brief mentions in blogs - I do not see substantive coverage for notability. Reywas92Talk 02:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete-Fails WP:NWEB by a mile or so.A handful of trivial mentions (mostly attributed data) in passing but no significant coverage. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:31, 2 July 2018 (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.