Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal eagle
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Tone 19:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Illegal eagle
- Illegal eagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- WP:DICDEF, poorly referenced, and not a very commonly used term Purplebackpack89 01:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An obscure numismatic usage and a Google search shows that the phrase more often applies to eagle feather poaching than to the wrong eagle species being portrayed on a coin. The single reference does not seem to be reliable, as it seems to be a blog masquerading as an academic paper. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The term exists, and people will want to look it up. I suggest that we consult some numismatists and people who study medals before closing this discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Possible joke/hoax since the "reference" provided did not mention the incident at all. It is also not likely that an American would make this mistake. Borock (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a typical result from a Google books search for "illegal eagle coin": "But the coin I wanted was a 1911 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle. If I'm reading the date correctly — 1933 — then this Double-Eagle coin is illegal!" he told Nancy. -The Baby-sitter Burglaries, 1996 -Borock (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Various searches couldn't turn up any reliable sources for this use of the term. It might be used by some people, but even then it's not notable enough for an article. First Light (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.