Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuck Bucks


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  05:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Zuck Bucks

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

IP user 2601:642:4600:be10:70cc:2d06:bf9e:b264 tried to nominate this for deletion, reason not given. IP users cannot add to the AfD discussion page, so I am finishing it for them. I'd presume the reasoning is not meeting notability due to not actually existing. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * IP’s nomination statement, copied from article talk page:


 * --Finngall talk 04:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per all above. This is not a thing - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete it's WP:SPECULATION. If/when they release it might warrant an article, but now is too soon. Shaws username  .  talk  . 13:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. popo dameron  ⁠ talk  17:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Meme garbage which outside of one firewalled FT link, is sourced by 'reportedly', which certainly isn't enough to clinch notability at all.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sourcing is limited to a Financial Times report about an alleged internal and informal name for an idea that a company has, which is nowhere near enough to establish notability; the article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. - Aoidh (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2024 (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.