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. It isn't substantially contested that the article is a mess of WP:OR. If a proper article on this topic is possible, it would probably need to be written from scratch based on reliable sources. Sandstein 07:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative payments[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Has been unsourced for 10 years. Appears to be all original research on whatever editors think counts as an alternative to credit cards (with no justifiable claim as to why credit cards are the gold standard everything needs to be alternative to in the first place...why not cash?). ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and not encyclopedic. All of the stuff the article talks about is real stuff, but there's no sense that there's an article there about the general concept of alternative payments itself. I could imagine such an article existing, but I don't think there's any NEED for it to exist that would warrant keeping this as a starting point. PianoDan (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No SIGCOV-quality references and the core definition is unsourced and isn't clearly natural: by defining alternative payments to be non-credit cards, the definition explicitly excludes cash. It's easy to find sources that define the term differently, e.g. for transactions that don't have a determinate monetary value. The content isn't of sufficient quality to look for an ATD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a quick Google search reveals that this exact term definitely exists (in fact, I just edited the nominated article to cite the first source that turned up). Even so, I definitely agree with User:PianoDan that the concept of "alternative payments" seems artificial, and I'm also not sure whether any of these sources that I've found meet WP:SIGCOV. Duckmather (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is an improvement on the version before it was submitted, in that the characterisation in the lead now better matches a source, but (i) you achieved this by changing the definition used in the article from one that excludes cash to one that includes it, (ii) the source actually calls them by the full name "alternative payment methods", not "alternative payments", so the source does not validate that actual term used in the article, and (iii) the source establishes that one body uses the term in this way but does not establish that the term is generally used in this way. I've no doubt that the article is talking about a meaningful phenomenon, rather I'm concerned that the article is setting out what is, for our purposes, a neologism,and is developed in an unencyclopediac way. The improvement you made does not go nearly far enough to change my opinion on this material. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Stewert puts it much better than I can, but this is the gist of my nomination. While Alternative music is a specific genre, and Alternative fuel refers to a class of non-conventual fuel sources, the content (and motivation?) for Alternative payments is like saying we need to have encyclopedia articles for anything out of whatever someone considers the norm ("alternative lawn care solutions" or "alternative shampoos" --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:19, 22 January 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.