Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidden Cash

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. I'm closing this as a keep for now but have no problems if the nom wants to renominate in the next 3/4 months (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Cash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Had its moment of fame, no long term notability. James^x12345 10:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may have been a fad lasting only a few months, but it was not a single event. I see significant coverage about it from important, national-level sources in the US (Los Angeles Times, Today) and the UK (The Telegraph). That's enough for notability IMO, and notability is not temporary. Right now the references are not cited in proper format; if the article is kept I will fix that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant amount of coverage and discussion. — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relist later coverage is still too recent to know if this will be a lengthy fad or a fart in the wind.--Otterathome (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2014 (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.