VikrammChand

Welcome!

Hello, VikrammChand, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Philately equity, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cabayi (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Philately equity

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Philately equity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cabayi (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Try Wiktionary. Cabayi (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Philatelic equity

The article Philatelic equity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not add anything to Stamp collecting and philately. No references. Contains opinion.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Financial philately

The article Financial philately has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Setting aside the low intelligibility of this article, a Google search for "financial philately" yields virtually nothing, so it doesn't appear to be a notable discipline/practice.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Philatelic equity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philatelic equity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philatelic equity until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Financial philately for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Financial philately is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial philately until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Melcous (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Before your propose to delete or merge any of my respective pages, I would like to add for both Financial Philately and Philatelic equity, the following same additional paragraphs to the page which will justify and explain why I insist these terminologies to be relevant in the context of future investments in philately, which has already began.

As a hobby, stamp collecting is an average school boy’s pastime and still proceeds to be so to some extent; when collecting modern day stamps or common abundant classics. However, serious stamp collecting in the Rare Classic’s (prior to 1870), is another story altogether. Participating in global exhibitions (both National and International) has become an extremely competitive venture and to most average collectors, has become an un-economical suggestion. Serious stamp collecting at the highest level, which is only affordable by a faction of collectors, can acquire the rarest stamps and the best condition classics to attain the desired results of securing a top place in most Global exhibitions. The most serious collectors are willing to acquire unique items to fill their collections at exorbitant prices, which has led to part of the industry, especially dealers & auction houses benefiting from this select demand. This indirectly creates a supply and demand situation at the very top of the Philatelic trade. If you view the recent stamp sale at Sotheby’s New York in 2014, wherein the Famous One Cent British Giana Stamp of 1854 fetched an unprecedented 8-digit figure breaking all levels of affordability for any Philatelist. This has also culminated in paving the way for financial investors to start dabbling into this extremely small, but speculative area of alternate investment. If you review some of the auction results that have taken place over the last few years, many rare iconic first issue classics and modern anomalies have fetched enormous gains. From the 1914 inverted Jenny’s of USA, to the 1847 Post-Office issues of Mauritius etc., these stamps have become Philatelic Equities in the eyes of most modern-day investors. Over the last few years, even Stanley Gibbons the famous and first commercial stamp retail store/ dealer, has now set up its own investment Indexes with GB and Chinese stamps, catering to the small punter on the possible investment returns, as demand for limited rare issues out-grows the supply. As much as the word investment does not sit well with the hobby, the reality is that each day rare unique stamps are out pricing themselves and becoming miniature commodities outside of the traditional stamp trade. It is only a matter of some time when both these terminologies will undoubtedly be coined accordingly, in parallel to the hobby trade.

There will be much information to still be added which will further compliment the above. I will be adding further relevant details in time.

Thanking you

You are using phrases of your own coinage to promote a type of investment. Wikipedia isn't a place to publicize or draw attention to new phrases or new concepts, and especially not to criticize, to evaluate, or to make arguments in favor of or against anything. It's an encyclopedia with neutrally and factually written articles about already-established topics that are covered at length in reliable sources. See WP:OR and WP:NEO. Largoplazo (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments but beg to disagree. I have no intention to promote any type of investment. These phrases have been used in the past in the philatelic investment world, I was keen to highlight them and be more specific in their meanings. VikrammChand (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The entirety of the above text that you proposed to add to the articles is an argument by you, and in the second person, no less, persuading readers toward a conclusion, including a prediction about the future. Wikipedia doesn't persuade. This isn't in anyway a criticism of your argument, it's just an explanation that arguments don't belong here at all. Largoplazo (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your comments and view point noted. If I was to rephrase the entire article, would that be acceptable ?203.126.30.178 (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It would depend largely on what you reworded it to say. But, even then, you seem to have made the very topics themselves up. Again, WP:NEO and WP:N apply. Largoplazo (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)