Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination


 * 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.  Wifione  Message 07:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This 'space currency' was a corporate publicity stunt, with no realistic prospect of entering into use. It only received transient news coverage at the time and has shown no long-term notability, with no significant coverage since the initial announcement. Essentially this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. Robofish (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete while kind of interesting, this pretty clearly never got off the ground, if it was even actually meant to. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree completely with Andrew's overview of the situation, but given the press coverage there's no argument on failing NOTE - this was mentioned around the world in major newspapers and news outlets. The upside is that this article clearly identifies it as s stunt, something that was definitely not the case at the time (see the History). I suggest this gives it some PSA value. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep once and future history. Who knows, it may become the forerunner of the equivalent to the Euro.  See WP:NTEMP:  "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."   Montanabw (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Follow up:  here is amusing coverage in 2011.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable, referenced and worth keeping. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * unfortunate keep worthless cruft, but clearly passes GNG :( Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment but kind of amusing cruft! ;-)  Montanabw (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2012 (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.