Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yankee Division We're Back challenge 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 delete. Consensus is that this coin does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. North America1000 01:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yankee Division We're Back challenge coin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Only reference is the website of the coin's designer. Hirolovesswords (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -Such a thing can almost never be independently notable. Anmccaff (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The coin's designer seems to have a prod tag on it at the moment, both seem to be advertisements and not notable. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Promo for coin designer. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. --  Dane talk  01:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not seem to meet the notability requirements. I'd note that such coins are relatively common within the military: I have several from each of the battalions or regiments I've served in. While they are often given out as a thank you for distinguished service of a minor kind, they are also often purchased by members through regimental trust funds and the like, so each one is relatively common. That said, there will be some very rare ones, which might be notable, but it would need strong sourcing to demonstrate the need for a stand alone article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 16 December 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.