Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slang terms for money
I find it hard to believe this list is in AfD. First, this is '''not''' , because Original research means the term has not been used by secondary independent source; while for this found in multiple reliable sources http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-01/five-dollar-banknote-rollout/7804174 ABC, https://www.theguardian.com/world/australia-news-blog/2013/sep/11/australia-britain-replacing-banknotes-plastic-polymer UK's Guardian and http://www.dailywritingtips.com/50-slang-terms-for-money/ Daily Writing. These sources also cancel 'speculation' claim as The Guardian and Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC don't report unfounded 'speculation'. This is '''not''' dictionary entry because it's legitimate list article of notable concepts per  and ''' not''' neologism, because neologism has received no coverage in independent sources while this list is sourced, and verifiable. Here are more sources besides the one above and those in the article http://www.fredak.com/dico/dico_trentesous.htm here, http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/o1-eng.cfm here, https://books.google.com/books?id=0j6GvkVvAGsC&lpg=PA490&dq=New%20York%20leeuwendaalder&hl=en&pg=PA154#v=onepage&q=thaler&f=false here, http://coins.lakdiva.org/netherlands/1644_wes_lion_daalder_ag.htm this one and http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/dollar|title=etymologiebank.nl this. The article is certainly notable though I agree it need some cleanup, but deletion is not that cleanup and  is very important step before AfDing
— User:Ammarpad, 17:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:LISTPURP||WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:No original research)