Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of anonymous exchangers of digital currency

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 Digital currency exchanger, delete the other two. —Darkwind (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of anonymous exchangers of digital currency[edit]

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

With utmost respect to the article creator, seeing as he has put a great deal of time and energy into making and improving upon articles regarding, I'm nominating this list along with several others (one as old as 2005) due to the lack of established notability and arguably functioning like a guide.

Here are the two other articles:

Speedy delete both "comparison" articles under criteria G11 as blatant promotion of a non-neutral POV ("software activists", "protect democracy", etc). However, keep Digital currency exchanger as a clearly notable topic. Ivanvector (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per talk --NovaSkola (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These comparison lists are almost always WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and most should be deleted. Pburka (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note:. My !vote applies only to the comparison articles. Pburka (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:HOWTO as a how-to-compare type of essay. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Digital currency exchanger and Comparison of anonymous cryptocurrencies. Why you weasel these articles here? They're not written like a guide and aren't complexity unsourced, just give them time to expand. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Comparison of anonymous exchangers of digital currency. Based on WP:G11 service promotion, and that alone is the reason for my opinion. However, I would add that neither of the two services being compared are notable, and the structure of the article makes it inherently dependent on original research (WP:OR). The topic should be covered without mentioning specific services, or perhaps mentioning services if a reliable source (e.g. Consumer Reports magazine)) covered a similar topic. --Agyle (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Digital currency exchanger. This is a pretty established type of business and is a valid topic for an article. While the article currently has many problems, it can be improved. There are numerous reliable sources with information on the topic. --Agyle (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the deletion process being used here is messed up; shouldn't each article have its own discussion, with a discussion page title corresponding to the title of the article? It's not clear when people simply say "delete" which article or articles they're talking about. --Agyle (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fully Agree , this mess appears on many deletion requests on Wikipedia, it's time to stop it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, I am having a hard time parsing through this discussion. Breadblade (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Digital currency exchanger and Comparison of anonymous cryptocurrencies. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comparison of anonymous exchangers of digital currency. This one seems pretty obvious. The page is a comparison of features of two companies, neither one of which is notable. I've removed the link to that page from the Bitcoin "See Also". Chris Arnesen
Merge Comparison_of_anonymous_cryptocurrencies into List_of_cryptocurrencies. There's just not enough cryptocurrencies to require two separate list articles.Chris Arnesen 16:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Digital_currency_exchanger for the reasons that Agyle mentions above. We can make it better. Chris Arnesen 16:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Benboy00, with respect, I've undone your edit of attempting to sort comments into lists. It's not unusual to nominate multiple articles in an AfD and the process was followed correctly here. Most editors who have commented here have explained which articles they support or don't and have given reasons to back up their particular argument, which honestly is better than most AfDs. Anyway the mess is for the closing admin to figure out, and I don't think that sorting comments under sub-headings is going to help; actually it stunts the discussion because most people who watch AfD don't expect there to be subheadings like this. If anyone disagrees with me I won't take offense if you revert this edit, but please include my comments here and any subsequent comments if you do. Ivanvector (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Digital currency exchanger. Checkingfax (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete of Comparison of anonymous cryptocurrencies. Based on WP:G11 service promotion. --Agyle (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, not service promotion. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comparisons, keep exchanger article. One 'comparison' article reads like a how-to on dated or defunct curriences, the other (comparison of anonymous crytpocurrencies) has been mostly blanked, lacks significant sourcing and still seems to have POV issues in spite of that. The article about exchangers doesn't fit in with the other two. It seems to be well-fleshed out and well-sourced. Breadblade (talk) 23:15, 13 January 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.