Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South African Republic pond

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 redirect to South African pound. Tone 14:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South African Republic pond[edit]

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

To my knowledge, this was not an independent currency, but merely coins issued with the Afrikaans word "pond" instead of "pound" minted onto the face. Basically, a currency-union with the South African Pound, where the "pond" is already mentioned in the article. I therefore put this (thus far unreferenced) stub up for discussion.

Also nominating: Transvaal pound (for the same reason) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If it's already mentioned at the Pound article, then no need for a move or merge, as there isn't anything sourced here to move. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Supposedly written by a numismatist, but no sources for either article. The days of "This is a stub, you can help Wikipedia by doing the work that I don't feel like doing" are over. If you can't tell us where you got the information, don't ask us to take your word for it. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to South African pound. Since it is mentioned there, that is a good reason to merge it. Do not delete and then recreate as a redirect, since this will destroy the edit history. Dew Kane (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dew Kane. Reasonable, cheap, and will save the edit history. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2010 (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.