Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of bitcoin wallets

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 delete. The deletion arguments are mostly variations on WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:PROMO, and problems with sourcing. On the keep side, most of the arguments were essentially WP:USEFUL, which isn't a valid reason to keep.

KVDP believes there may be an earlier version which would be worth keeping, but made that argument 6 days ago and nobody went with it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of bitcoin wallets[edit]

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

This is a linkfarm for non-notable products based on unreliable sources. Not a single one of the references is subject to editorial oversight; they should be considered self-published. Removing all unreliably-sourced content would amount to blanking the page. Huon (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it is useful content that has been moved off the main Bitcoin article due to WP:TOOBIG. Maybe needs some help with WP:RS. BTW, Huon you should have alerted the editors on the Bitcoin page of your proposal to delete a sub-page. I have done that for you now. You stated in your nomination, "Removing all unreliably-sourced content would amount to blanking the page." However, there are 8 wallets that I count on the article you nominated that have their own wiki articles, so I can't see how they need citations as well. Do they need citations just to justify being on the list if they have their own articles, I have seen lists of yoga instructors, eg List_of_yoga_schools, that dont comply to that strict standard. I think I will delete the offending content and then we can discuss the article in general. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or a consumer guide, and most of this page is just OR/ SPS spam. Even the main source here, cryptocompare.com, is an advertising business itself. See their Advertise page which says "If you are a new Crypto Currency, a Bitcoin or Crypto Currency Exchange, a Mining equipment provider or Mining Contract Provider, or a Wallet provider - we can find a way to give you a means to push your product to those you want to reach. We have multiple methods of getting you and your ideas in front of customers". So this "article" is really just an ad for that site. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per based on single, unreliable source. - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is too reference guide for me. I don't think its our role to provide comparisons between all software. Digital technology changes quickly so it can easily become out of date. What is the criteria for inclusion? How many people are actually using these? It seems a bit trivial. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All good points... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Having an article that provides a comparison between cryptocurrency wallets to choose the one that offers, say, the safest wallet, is, per se, an enough reason to do not remove the article, in my humble opinion. Besides, all sources included seem ok and reliable. Arguing that just because some (or even every single one) have advertisement is nonsense. Almost any source from any article have advertisements - that's usually their business model and that's how they survive and provide great contents/services. - Acaciosc (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revert to earlier version - Since I made this page, a lot of data has been removed and other promotional data (like "rating" columns, ...) has been added. See my version and then see a version with promotional data added I think a page like this has a benefit on wikipedia but only if kept objective and focusing on important elements.KVDP (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a how to guide or a directory. That's what this link-farm effectively is. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced, and also per WP:NOTCATALOGUE: we are not a consumer comparison website. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:36, 23 July 2017 (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.