Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Arsinoe II Octodrachm

:{{la|Queen Arsinoe II Octodrachm}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Queen_Arsinoe_II_Octodrachm Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Queen Arsinoe II Octodrachm}})

No claim of any particular notability; the article currently is four-fifths explanation on the historical background and context of the coin and coin-making in the period, with the rest consisting of an "ownership history", but it fails to make the case why it is important as a cultural object distinct from any number of ancient gold coins. Constantine ✍ 19:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure how to proceed with this article. As a preliminary matter, I don't think that this particular coin at the Art Institute of Chicago passes WP:GNG. The only significant discussion of its history and significance is [http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/5779?search_no=596&index=30 in this article at the Art Institute of Chicago's website]. However, there appears to be a fair bit of literature about Queen Arsinoe II Octodrachms in general. See, for example, the discussion of the coins in (1) [https://books.google.com/books?id=TmhjC_AdoNsC&pg=PA67 Hellenistic Art: From Alexander the Great to Augustus], (2) [https://books.google.com/books?id=2AoaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR40 A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum: The Ptolomies, Kings of Egypt], (3) [https://books.google.com/books?id=hUVB_YdLzooC&pg=PA892 The Encyclopedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information], and (4) the American Numismatic Society's [https://books.google.com/books?id=_8MGwpK7NZYC&pg=PA96 Descriptive Catalogue of Greek Coins]. One option would be to transform this article into a description of the coins in general. Another option would be to merge or redirect this to ancient Greek coinage, and yet another option would be to merge or redirect this to Arsinoe II. I am personally in favor of merging or redirecting, though I certainly don't think this specific coin should have its own article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

:* Pretty much agree with everything you wrote. For the record, I also have no problem with redirecting or merging. Constantine ✍ 20:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps delete -- This appears to be about one gold coin in one museum. An article about gold octodrahms in general might be worth having and some of the content of this article might be used for that. I certainly think we cannot keep the present article as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• WP:TNT delete? Or else a major rewriting. I came across this article after working through the backlog of new users who moved their sandboxes into mainspace, thereby avoiding detection by new pages patrol. On 16 March 2016 there was a mass move by editors related to Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/DePaul University/ANT 256 Material Culture of the Old World (Winter). They have created potentially interesting subjects, but most of the time, they focus on one particular example in Chicago. Sometimes it was easy to turn it into a wiki-worthy page, such as Kponyungo (previously The Kponyungo Mask of Cote d'Ivoire now in Chicago), but this coin with all its distantly relevant background needs a lot more attention. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete and Draft later if needed as this is still questionably solidly better. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 17 April 2016 (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.