Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antarctican dollar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A so-called "private currency" which seems to be nothing more than a commercial enterprise. Limited Google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. The article itself says it is unofficial currency. Are we in the business of promoting these scams? Non-notable and non-encyclopaedic for me. Delete I@n 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax/garbage.- Runch 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good logic, I've never heard of it so it must be fake. --Kurt 06:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam. Gazpacho 17:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite the manner in which it is written, at the end of the day it's simply advertising or promoting a worthless and meaningless novelty product. I love the line, "Although not the official currency of the continent, the currency may be used if both parties agree". So can Monopoly money. Agent 86 17:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Deli nk 18:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but can you pay for naming a star with these? NawlinWiki 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Agent 86. I must say, though, that some of them are damn pretty. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: proof of exsistance Twillimsted 22:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Gazpacho 19:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Keep: There are numerous private currencies. But this is very well known among banknote collectors. Here are the evidences
- Non-notable? I hope this has convinced you it is notable.
- Advertising or promoting a worthless and meaningless novelty product? I wrote most of it and I obviously do not work for the Antarctica Overseas Exchange Office. Wikipedia has articles of commercial products that are notable within their domains.
- proof of exsistance? There are pictures and external links.
- hoax/scam? The article and the official website clearly states that it is not a legal tender. It is what it is. This is not a hoax/scam.
- --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Private currencies are notable and should have their own articles. – Zntrip 17:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This particular "private currency" is nothing more than a commercial product, and as such falls under WP:CORP. From what I can gather, it fails the product notability guidelines. - Runch 04:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:CORP says
- Comment: This particular "private currency" is nothing more than a commercial product, and as such falls under WP:CORP. From what I can gather, it fails the product notability guidelines. - Runch 04:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A product or service is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
- The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
- A copy of a published work on the International Bank Note Society Journal
- An article written by Peter Symes. If you go to the home page of that website, you will find that Peter Symes is a publisher of books and articles on world paper money
- A commentary written by Lawrence H. White, on the Independent Institute
- The Penguin Post, vol. 3 no. 4
- A Romanian newspaper
- Therefore, it meets the requirement of WP:CORP --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ok, you've convinced me of it's notability (articles prove notability, the previous vendors pages did not). However, I do plan on rewriting the first sections of the article, as I feel it currently reads as an advertisement and could be confusing to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. - Runch 15:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP This is still a currency used in Antarctica, even if it is commercial and you don't like it. Also, per Chochopk, it meats WP:CORP. --Kurt 06:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Chochopk. I was gonna vote delete, not a real currency. But even if it isn't "real"(nationally, or privatly funded), it is notable, and is a product people are buying. Joe I 06:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Joe. —Nightstallion (?) 08:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Chochopk. Even special, regional, private and fantasy issues are parts of numismatics/notaphily. The "Antarctican dollars" (along with MMM bonds and Jason Islands private issues) are well known amongst banknote collectors - and Wikipedia is just the best place to publish info on its official status.Timur lenk 13:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Chochopk; appears to be an actual currency people are buying into. Yamaguchi先生 23:17, 18 September 2006 (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.