Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money habitudes

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Money habitudes}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Money habitudes}})

We seem to have had this article for more than ten years. Ah.... look at it. —S Marshall T/C 17:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 17:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Draftify: Reads almost like an advertisement, doesn't appear to be notable per the table below. Edit: Now appears to be somewhat notable per the comments below, but still appears promotional and shouldn't be in the mainspace like this. Bsoyka (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC) {{small|revised 15:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}

{{source assess table|user=Bsoyka|

{{source assess|source=Money Habitudes|ind=n|rel=?|sig=y}}

{{source assess|source=Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education|ind=-|ind_just=Biography of member of board of directors|rel=y|sig=-}}

{{source assess|source=PR.com|ind=n|ind_just=Press release|rel=-|rel_just=Basically self-published|sig=y}}

{{source assess|source=The Washington Post|ind=y|ind_just=Major newspaper|rel=y|rel_just=Highly-referenced source|sig=y}}

}}

• Comment Does one highly notable, one partially notable and other piddly sources give us notability? Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• :WP:GNG says, {{tq|A topic is {{strong|presumed}} to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received {{strong|significant coverage}} in {{strong|reliable sources}} that are {{strong|independent of the subject}}.|q=y}} I only see one source that's even independent, and GNG generally expects there to at least be multiple. Even if there was another source meeting the criteria, the Washington Post article honestly reads like an ad, sharing a live discussion with the creator of the tool and advertising a giveaway at the end. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 22:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep [https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1063160 1] [https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=58161241&itype=CMSID 2]... And there's more for the BEFORE-ing, various newspaper mentions with varying amount of coverage, but these plus the WaPo source seem to provide enough coverage to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• My position is that meeting the notability guidelines is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a "keep" outcome. Although I'm not massively impressed with the coverage in the American local newspaper, the other source is a serious academic study which shows that this "card game" is, in fact, a serious assessment tool with useful applications by professionals. Nevertheless we can't retain this content in mainspace because Wikipedia isn't the author's webhost. This is advertising spam and strictly speaking is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G11. In this case I've chosen to start an AfD rather than tag it for speedy deletion in order to give you or any editors who agree with you seven days to rewrite it as an encyclopaedia article.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• keep I've not looked at the history, but while I'm seeing an article that could stand a lot of improvement, I'm not seeing it as overly promotional. Notability seems undisputed. 13:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Only references cited are to their own website, press-releases, or winning an industry award of dubious quality and unknown relevance. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• {{ping|Stifle}} two awards and the Washington Post is in the article. We also have [https://archives.joe.org/joe/2015april/tt2.php] and similar things. It's not a great article, but it looks quite over the GNG bar. Hobit (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it's in order for me to tag this for G11 speedy deletion during an ongoing AfD. If there are no further comments when this reaches the bottom of the queue, please would the evaluating sysop decide whether to just delete it as marketing spam (with, obviously, no prejudice against re-creation as a proper encyclopaedia article).—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• :I think it's custom and practice (at least) that CSDs apply only to content that it'd be uncontroversial to delete, and so tagging an article for speedy deletion when there are keep !votes on the table is not normally done unless some overriding reason emerges such as a copyvio or the article creator being found to have been banned. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• :Your complaint is that the article is in bad shape rather than that the topic is not notable? I get that you hinted at that, but "Ah.... look at it" wasn't as clear as I at least would like. There is a ton of coverage out there, the article from Michelle Singletary, someone I've been reading for decades and respect, is clearly the best. If your argument is WP:TNT or something other than notability, let us know. The article isn't great and does read a bit like an understated press release. But really, I struggle with how I'd write it any better. If the argument is notability, I think the sources are enough to overcome that objection. Beyond that WP article (which is really strong), there are a ton of self-published sources in the pseudo-academic literature, but also some decent ones. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, reads like advertisement, sources are their website, and the few other sources don't show it's notable. Artem.G (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• :Well, it is notable, and I say this as the nominator. JClemens showed that above. You're correct that it's an advertisement and shouldn't be in the mainspace in that form though.—S Marshall T/C 11:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete the Washington Post piece is blatant promotion (there is literally a discount code in the article), the other references are either actual Press Release links or their own website. Not a notable game. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• The two Jclemens references do not establish notability. One appears to be an undergraduate student project, the other appears to be a trivial mention (which establishes that the game exists but little more). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• :{{ping|User:力}} That is nearly a BLP violation. No really. You are accusing Michelle Singletary of what, being paid by the creator? BLP does apply outside of article space. Could you refactor that or provide a source to back it up? Hobit (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability issues aside, the article reads like an advertisement, is poorly sourced even after 3 weeks of AfD, and concerns a WP:MILL topic (a commercial product). The encyclopedia loses little by losing this article. Sandstein 08:50, 1 April 2022 (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.