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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collectors market index[edit]

Collectors market index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable term. An exact Google search for the term has a total of 13 results (almost all Wiki mirrors). The included list is nothing more than excessive promotional listcruft based on self-published sources. GermanJoe (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The exact article title might not come up much, and one can argue about changing the name, but in my opinion there is a notable subject here. The Handbook of Alternative Assets: Making Money from Art, Rare Books, Coins and Banknotes, Forestry, Gold and Precious Metals, Stamps, Wine and Other Alternative Assets discusses many of these indices. SG100 Stamp Price Index, GB30 Rarities Index, Commonwealth Rarities 30 Index, Liv-ex 100 Index, Liv-ex Fine Wine Investable Index, and Liv-Ex Claret Chip Index all get at least a paragraph and in some cases more. Other indices, perhaps in a narrower range, are discussed in many other collectibles books. I do think, however, that the list needs a clearer inclusion criterion and could probably use some trimming after that is established. SpinningSpark 17:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If the term is not commonly used we shouldn't have an article or list about it. Google Search is not infallible, but for a common business term there should be atleast a few reliable sources using said term. Granted the linked source briefly summarizes a few of the better-known indexes, but this information could be better used to expand the main articles about the respective notable index organizations, instead of cobbling together such an artificial list. Currently all entries are exclusively based on self-published information, and several of them plagiarize the organizations' own descriptions. Several of the overly-detailed entries (i.e. Colecty) seem barely noteworthy and show no reliable sources at all on Google. The excessive listing of every minor sub-index without substantial content or independent sources also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY or the respective list inclusion guidelines.

In short: I am not against saving some of the noteworthy content based on independent sources of course, but in its current form the article is near-impossible to salvage without a clear definition of its scope and a complete rewrite. GermanJoe (talk) 18:41, 2 July 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.