Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Innovation $1 Coin Program Design - Obverse

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 14:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Innovation $1 Coin Program Design - Obverse

[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)

I don't believe that the rejected obverse designs of the American Innovation $1 Coin Program are notable enough for their own article. ZLEA _T\^C 11:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with combining the pages so we have a record of the options the government considered, and what changes were made from the final design to the finished product. That being said, I don't think the sub-page meets any of the criteria for deletion.Iceman0426 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too am fine with merging, but a table of the proposed designs might be a little too much. I think we should mention that twelve design proposals were made, and compare the chosen design drawing to the eventual coin design. Having a table of proposed designs might lead to people questioning why there isn't a similar table for each reverse design. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The committee's mandate is to do this process for all of the coins. So we will be able to do the same thing for all 57 coins in the program. I think adding the winning design to the main page is a good idea. I realize that the design pages will be smaller than the main pages, but I don't see a problem with having them. Iceman0426 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would encourage a link the in the main article to the Mint's website with rejected designs, but we should not have a separate article just to memorialize failed alternatives in a gallery - these are simply not notable and do not receive substantive tertiary coverage. This doesn't even belong in the main article but should be limited to a brief mention per ZLEA. Do NOT do this for every coin reverse design – not even the individual coins in the series are notable, much less what didn't actually get minted. Reywas92^Talk 07:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that the designs are not notable. In addition to being on the usmint.gov and the ccac.gov, here are some places where the designs also receive attention: mintnewsblog.com, new.coinupdate.com, thepatrioticmint.com, numismaticnews.net, coinworld.com, usstatequarters.com. This demonstrates that there is interest in the designs and the process. I mentioned to ZLEA a few different options to make everybody happy. I redid the table and put a sample at the bottom of the obverse page as an example that could be used for any of the ideas so that it would take up much less room. First, with the smaller format we could put it on the main page. Second, the page could be renamed (something like "American Innovation $1 Coin Program Proposed Designs), and all designs put on a single page. Finally, they could be put on under the CCAC's page. Iceman0426 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the designs are on a government website and recieve attention from websites that track progress of CCAC design eliminations, that does not mean they are notable. If you think the rejected designs are notable enough to be included in a separate article or even in the main article despite the lack of secondary sources, then you should be able to tell us why they are significant. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, only sources official, and blog/fan sites. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2019 (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.