Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10 Reichspfennig (World War II German coin)


 * 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 merge to Reichsmark. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

10 Reichspfennig (World War II German coin)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage of this topic in the media by reliable sources, fails WP:N. There appear to be no reliable sources that cover this topic. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Reichsmark, of which it was a subdivision. That article has a section on coins.  Possibly we might turn Reichspfennig (currently a dab-page) into a substantive article and merge all articles on coins below a Reichsmark into that.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge Per Peterking; no reason to suppose this denizen of four-for-a-dollar junk boxes is any more notable than the other WWII coins of Nazi Germany. If someone finds a lot to say about this particular coin, it can always be re-developed.  Right now, no one has.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge Per Peterking; no reason to suppose this denizen of four-for-a-dollar junk boxes is any more notable than the other WWII coins of Nazi Germany. If someone finds a lot to say about this particular coin, it can always be re-developed.  Right now, no one has.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.