Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelantanese dinar


 * 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. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Kelantanese dinar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Discussed items are not coins but privately minted gold aimed at retail "investors". The clever promotion campaign even got some mainstream newspapers to cover them, but they are just (overpriced) commercial products. They are not legal tender and not a currency of Kelantan or any other public entity. The page amounts to a free ad for the issuers. It is regularly changed to add dubious or misleading information Peterk2 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: seriously lacks notability. Alexius08 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On the basis of what notability guideline? The GNG, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources"? Or the mysterious "a currency has to be legal tender to be notable guideline", that I don't seem to be able to find? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in Malaysian national newspapers. A careful look at the coverage shows that it is both positive and negative. If that coverage can be translated into the article, we can have a well-balanced article ourselves. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: Lacks notability; souvenir item, not legal tender; external reference hijacks the browser. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume you looked at the references then, and all the other news articles that aren't currently used as references, but could be? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Non-notability arguments seem to be based on the promotional external links. Hasn't anyone noticed the press coverage cited? - Yk (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is an external links cited in this article but only some of the part were poorly written. - WPSamson (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as commercial spam. Carrite (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stricken. My bad. Sufficient sources are showing. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is ample significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish that this is a notable topic. The fact that something can be bought on the market does not mean an article on it is commercial spam. This is not commercial spam any more than our article Krugerrand. --Lambiam 16:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if this is indeed a souvenir item, coverage demonstrates that it is a notable one.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  20:34, 2 May 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.