Talk:Stroud pound

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Numismatics: British currency Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the British currency task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Gloucestershire Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The given references are of a promotional nature all dating from the time of the launch and fall short of the requirement... "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail.... significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" Lame Name (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC, The Times, The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph all 'promoting' the Stroud Pound? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 18:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Have they mentioned it since? A slow news day in late summer space filler. Lame Name (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." Evidently these national organisations thought the introduction of the Stroud Pound worthy enough to report.

".....it does not need to have ongoing coverage." (From Wikipedia guidelines on notability.)

See Totnes Pound and the Lewes Pound which do not have such tags. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 18:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it does need significant coverage. Yes - there are lots of bad articles on Wikipedia. I will get around to them all eventually ;-) Lame Name (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will. Coverage by four national media organisations is 'significant'. It doesn't have to be 'extensive' or 'ongoing'. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 20:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, five major articles exceeds the threshold of notability for a Wikipedia article, please see WP:Notability WaynaQhapaq (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:N for an easy to follow guide to notability. From whence: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Having some trivial press coverage around the launch of a product is not of itself particularly notable. Had the coverage been an analysis in the Financial Times then we may be on to sometthing. Alas it was not. Notability is not established. Lame Name (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get to the bottom of this. Apparently, you're defining coverage in the Financial Times as "notable" while you characterise the coverage by the BBC, The Guardian, The Times and The Daily Telegraph to be "trivial". This is an arbitrary standard based on nothing more than personal prejudices, and has no bearing whatsoever on the notability of the Stroud Pound as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

No. Mere coverage anywhere is not an indication of notability. What I said was that had there been some analysis in the FT (or anywhere else that covers monetary/financial events) then we may (but not necessarily) be on to something. Lame Name (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the coverage were limited to an assortment of blogs, you would likely have a point, However that is clearly not the case. There is no reason that coverage in a monetary/financial news publication would be any more notable than the Times or the Guardian. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A point by point analysis as per the standards set by WP: Notability:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

Exceeds: Stround pound is the main subject of source material articles.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

Meets: BBC, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and The Times all easily meet this guideline.

"Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3]

ditto, see above

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4] "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[5]

Meets: All sources provided are fully independent and unrelated to promotion of the article's subject, No violation of WP:WWIN

Furthermore - as has already been discussed - coverage of this topic by secondary sources need not be ongoing. Frankly I do not see what the issue here is. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is... Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia and its articles, by definition, should by encyclopaedic. Just because something exists does not qualify it for an article in Wikipedia. Just because something gets a mention in the press does not make it notable. Both I and our local burglar, have been mentioned in the press (but not together ;-). Although we could produce a similar level of referencing from reliable sources as this article neither of us is remotely notable, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."" There is probably a perfectly good local currency article to be written (the extant one is not it) which could cite the Stroud Pound as an example and use one of the supplied references to verify that it did actually exist. That would be about as far as it could go without further significant independent coverage. Lame Name (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you (and your local burglar) have indeed had full length articles written exclusively about you as the subject in 4 highly esteemed national publications, Then perhaps you are noteworthy enough to merit a small article in Wikipedia. As I highly doubt this is the case, (please, prove me wrong if I am), that is an irrelevant argument. The policy guideline set by WP:NOTNEWS is intended to prevent wikipedia from becoming a dumping ground for trivial "media events" such as celebrity gossip, cricket match scores, or every minor crime given a brief mention in the daily news. As the coverage of these topics provided by relevant sources would not likely compare with the coverage received by the Stroud Pound, this is not a valid comparison. Furthermore, the Stroud Pound, as a local currency, is a significant topic, as it is part of a larger context of the contemporary Transition Movement and a growing trend of the use of local currencies by a number of towns both in the UK and internationally. To suggest its coverage by national media is somehow "trivial" or merely a "product launch" and not worthy of a reasonably proportionate article, is frankly your personal opinion, and thus can be construed POV and/or Original Research. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One need only check the dates of each of these articles to see that this is a "trivial" "product launch" press release promotional pap. Lame Name (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your point. The sources date from mid-September of last year, which was the time that the Stroud Pound entered into general circulation. as it is a currency it is unlikely to receive additional coverage, unless it is affected by a major event (when was the last time you read an article about the Honduran Lempira, or the Aruban florin?). In any case for a subject to be noteworthy it need not receive ongoing coverage as per WP:N, and to suggest that The BBC, Times, Telegraph, and Guardian were somehow, "promoting" the Stroud Pound in their articles is ludicrous (In their coverage of the expansion of the Eurozone, are they "promoting" the Euro?). These are well respected news organizations, not advertising agencies. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Seriously? Lame Name (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the link you have provided somehow relevant to this discussion? If so, please explain how.WaynaQhapaq (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that newspapers cannot be used as a promotional vehicle. To quote from the linked item "In one day alone this August, SWNS achieved 62 pieces of coverage in the 11 national daily newspapers, including 29 page leads - and all on the main news pages." It is a relatively simple process to have such articles placed in a newspaper. It is certainly not a measure of notability. Lame Name (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are insinuating that The Town Council of Stroud purchased this service (in your linked item) to acquire the media coverage of the release of the Stroud Pound. Insofar as the Stroud Pound was released by a non-profit entity with a limited budget, and is not a celebrity, commercial enterprise or product, that does not seem likely. Unless you have definitive proof of this, your suggestion is entirely speculative and constitutes Original Research at best, and outright falsehood at worst. In any case, services like the one you have linked to -however unsavoury you may fancy them- are a commonplace "middleman" service in contemporary journalistic practice. The participation of such services in the process of journalism does not indicate the status of a particular subject's notability. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the current Stroud Pound dates from 2009, I'm sure I can remember something similar, just called The Stroud, back in the 1970's. Does anyone else recall this and have a citable source? Jeffgwatts (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I remember it, from a date between 1985 and 1995. Some shops in Stroud gave a 10% discount if you used it. Maproom (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]