Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central States Numismatic Society

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Central States Numismatic Society}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Central States Numismatic Society}})

Fails WP:NORG. Refs present are either SELFPUB primary sources or wholly unrelated sources, all of only moderate reliability. A quick BEFORE yielded no evidence that this organization is notable, with results only comprising mentions a convention the group has hosted from posts by attendees and advertisers. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NORG. Sources are all the organization's own materials or niche numismatics publications (see WP:TRADES) that don't contribute to NORG. Awfully close to G11 territory. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The numismatic publications cited in the article are aimed at hobbyists and collectors, not dealers, so they aren't WP:TRADES and are legitimate references. As another example about the distinction between consumer and trade magazines, a magazine about knitting for hobbyists and people who like to knit is a consumer magazine, not a trade, but [https://www.knittingtradejournal.com/ Knitting Trade Journal] is a trade publication. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• :The presently cited trade mags are largely not about the subject of the article or come from extremely marginal pubs. I don't see them meaningfully contributing to notability.~ Pbritti (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• :The principle of WP:TRADES applies to niche hobbyist publications. Many very obscure topics get covered, even extensively, in niche publications; that doesn't make them encyclopedically notable. Per WP:ORGIND, "{{tq|A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.}}" It's hard to say that Numismatic News and Coin World have no vested interest in the success of an association made up of their subscriber base. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep. This article is well sourced with a few secondary reliable sources.--23mason (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• {{re|23mason}} Which of these are RS secondary sources providing SIGCOV? ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that the article's references are to trade publications, which per WP:TRADES are unsuitable for establishing notability, irrespective of who they are aimed at. Sandstein 07:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.