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 merge to Coin counterfeiting. Tim Song (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Omega Man (counterfeiter)[edit]

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

I happened upon this article after noticing a link to it in an article on my watchlist. There's no question. This is a fraud, joke article, not existant. Such a huge quantity of fake gold pieces would lead to a few refs on Google, right? Nothing except mirror sites. If the fakes are prized, they should show up on eBay. They don't. Delete. Wehwalt (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the same omega-story is reproduced in Gold coin and who knows were else. East of Borschov (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ There is no mention of this anywhere. Tons of blog and forum posts referring to the article (or exact duplicates of it) but no mention in books/newspaper archives etc. --Savonneux (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't find those examples when I searched.--Savonneux (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (but perhaps move to a better title, though I don't know what would be appropriate). See, for example, here. Other references are among the top hits in this Google search, but without preview. Article perhaps needs someone with back issues of The Numismatist to supply some better references. Deor (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thanks, apparently the counterfeits do exist. I would suggest, then, that there is not sufficient notability for The Omega Man. As there is already content in Gold coin, there does not need to be a merge, and this article can still be deleted. After all, per WP:BLP1E, we cover the event, in this case the counterfeiting, and it is adequately covered elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I tend to think that there is material for an article here, but I agree that it should be about the counterfeits and not about the person (about whom nothing is apparently known). The mention in Gold coin is skimpy. Let's see what others think. Deor (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The counterfeits apparently do exist, but we have no confirmation for anything else. I do not think we have notability guidelines for unknown counterfeiters, but this does not seem to have made much of a splash.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — For events such as this that happened in the '70s, Google hits alone might not be sufficient. White 720 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom, on reconsideration, to Counterfeit money or Gold coin. Deor's sources are very helpful, but I don't think this is independently notable. I can find nothing which calls this guy the Omega Man, but information on the counterfeits should be inserted into one of those articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (changing from "keep" above). Wehwalt's suggestion seems a good one, though I'd suggest Coin counterfeiting as the target, putting the material in a new section (since the only currently present section deals with counterfeits intended for circulation), which could be expanded to deal with the counterfeiting of collectible coins in general. Deor (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope that it isn't edited out after merger. If properly sourced and spun back out, the article focus and the title should be about the Omega counterfeit coins, rather than about the person(s) who created them. The high-quality counterfeits are notable in the world of numismatics, but one can only guess about who the mastermind was behind these. Looks like "they got away with it". Mandsford 15:59, 28 May 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.