Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 cent

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. Sandstein 10:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 cent

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable. The coverage is purely numismatic and largely trivial even there. More notable coins such as the 1909 S VDB penny don't have stand-alone articles. Nominating (rather than redirect) partly procedurally (as an IP made an incorrect nomination) and partly because countries other than the US have cent coins, and a redirect to Penny (United States coin) may be uncalled for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this article, for similar reasons, and also nominated by the IP editor:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both. The only item of any significance is the "P" mark, and that is already included in Penny (United States coin), so there is nothing to left to merge. The specificity of the title seems an implausible redirect to me, though if others want to redirect I wouldn't object. The only sources for both articles are Coinweek, which states at the bottom that "All News, Articles, Commentary and Opinions are contributed by the author(s), with or without compensation, who are solely responsible for the content, and do not represent CoinWeek Management," which seems to indicate a lack of substantial editorial review. Even if the P mark did have enough significant coverage to technically qualify as multiple independent sources (which it doesn't), not every "notable" fact should be its own article. MarginalCost (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2018 (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.