Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake denominations of United States currency


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Fake denominations of United States currency

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a magnet for trivial cruft and in principle, an almost unmanageable list. Virtually all of the present content is unsourced or uses unreliable sources. Anything really important can simply be mentioned in passing in an article about counterfeiting or American currency. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nominator, really--it already is crufty, with nothing but odd news items. Indeed, if there ever is anything worthwhile, it ought to go in the articles suggested by Koavf. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep All of it is notable, all of it is sourceable. Some of it is already fairly well sourced. I think we could defend an individual article on many of the individual denominations. but at least a combination article is appropriate There has been an immense amount published in this are. I'll look for some.   DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Response "Several people have produced $0 bills as a joke, with pictures of their political enemies or other people. The bills usually have "ZERO DOLLARS" marked in capital letters.". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, but remove the unsourced junk, particularly the $0 bill section. As DGG points out, much of the article is sourced, and I've found several better sources for parts of it that may not be very solidly sourced yet (NYTimes - read the full article, 2001 news story, CNN in 2004, another NYT story, Ghana Business News, same story on Sky News, item on $1 million bills, another item regarding $1 million bills) I expect that the overall topic has been documented somewhere else, thus making the topic as a whole notable, but I confess that I haven't found such evidence yet. Unsourced material detracts from the rest of the article, though, and should be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Fake currency denominations are a legitimate part of American cultural history, no less so that things like Sawing off of Manhattan Island, e.g., (The Numismatist, Volume 96, "Although today we hear expressions such as 'queer as a $3 bill'....").  I wonder how old the $3 bill as fake/phony/queer goes back, actually.   (1949 - "phony as a three dollar bill");  (1943 - "quite a trick, like trying to change a three dollar bill at your favorite bank.")'  (1942 - "as rare as a three dollar bill");  (1937 - "It is as fictitious and fraudulent, from stem to stern, as a $3 bill");  (1931 - "ONLY $3 BILL EVER ISSUED IS FOUND IN OHIO");  (1914 - ny times story on bartender getting a $3 bill issued in 1852 from a patron, bartender had not believed there was a 3 dollar bill);  (1905 - ny times letter to editor, someone in actual possession of a 1777 $3 bill)--Milowent • talkblp-r  17:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up. This article is quite popular and most of the material can be sourced even if it is not currently. Deleting the article will simply result in the same material being replicated to multiple other articles. It's good to have a single place for it. Cshay (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I found the subject of the article to be personally noteworthy, which is more than I can say about most of the AfD articles I look at.  Deterence  Talk 23:14, 16 September 2011 (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.