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. ✗plicit 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium as an investment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I attempted to copyedit this article but had to give up because there is almost no useful substance in it. It is a stream-of-consciousness essay possibly intended to promote penny-stocks and definitely in violation of the efficient market hypothesis. While the market capitalization of lithium stocks may be impressive, it pales in comparison with the market capitalization of the article, in that it insists on capitalizing the word market (and every other noun). Uses ampersands instead of and throughout and quickly gets lost in minutia. K. Oblique 03:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. K. Oblique 03:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsurprisingly, some parts of this article appear to be copyright violations: [1]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I had the same hunch, but, if I am not mistaken, this may be a case of the external page copying the article. There is only one archived version of that page and the relevant text was present in the article before the date of that version. K. Oblique 03:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, though I'm not entirely opposed to the article conceptually, I think it would essentially need to be destroyed and built from the ground up. Article seems to be made on heavy bias, with User:Lithium-rich being the main contributor (you think they'd choose a more subtle name). Article is... admittedly made with passion for Lithium, but appears to exist to give the market the same type of 'legitimacy' as other markets such as Silver as an investment. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although article is poor quality subject is just as notable as the other articles about different metals as investments. Ping me if the result is keep and I will do a little pruning. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Radical prune or delete This is probably a notable topic, but the current content is more embarassingly NPOV than I would ever have thought possible for such a factual topic. This needs to be reduced to the bare essentials until such time as someone tackles the material in a neutral manner. If there's no appetite for that, then delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. This article has useful but poorly organized information. There appears to be no Wikipedia entry for the Direct Lithium Extraction technology. Nor do I recall a good discussion of the different types of substrates and mining techniques for lithium. The hard rock methods in particular can cause serious water depletion and pollution. Putting aside the 4th generation stuff, lithium is a critical international commodity which deserves an organized treatment in Wikipedia. 2600:1700:1C60:6C70:7DE5:B584:2E44:78A (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whatever notability the topic has, it can be dealt with at lithium and there’s no need for a standalone page per WP:PAGEDECIDE. JBchrch talk 16:28, 9 May 2022 (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.