Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptocurrency (2nd nomination)

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. No prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocurrency[edit]

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

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

WP:CFORK of Digital currency. These pages should be either deleted or merged with Digital currency and the full List of digital currencies. Beware of content removals in those respective pages. KyleLandas (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content fork (earlier KyleLandas claimed it was a content fork), cryptocurrency doesn't treat the same subject as digital currency. A cryptocurrency is a special type of digital currency, as it has multiple defining features, which other digital currencies lack (for example, cryptocurrencies rely on cryptography/proof-of-work for currency distribution and production, and they are also decentralized and peer-to-peer). All cryptocurrencies are digital currencies, but not all digital currencies are cryptocurrencies, this is in a similar manner to the way that all digital currencies are alternative currencies, but not all alternative currencies are digital currencies (so there are articles for both of those topics too). I've created a separate list article, as there are a large number of (smaller) cryptocurrencies, and I didn't want to fill up the original article.

Besides, cryptocurrency should have a page as it clearly meets the notability guidelines given the number of reliable sources for it (I've added quite a few to the cryptocurrency page, but a quick google search reveals far more which could be added if necessary), this alone should be enough to keep a place for the article given the following guideline from the notability article: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below.

With regards to the so called content removals, I was simply moving the information on cryptocurrencies, to the article on cryptocurrencies. Claims of a content fork had been made, so I decided to remove the information about cryptocurrencies from the article on digital currencies, and leave it in the article about cryptocurrencies (I'd originally wanted to keep the important information on both pages, it was only after claims of content forks that I removed the information from one of the pages). Cliff12345 (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of cryptocurrencies, and merge cryptocurrencies. The list is full of stuff that is not notable, and smells really scammy and fraud-like (as is the list of digital currencies). Plus, it's duplicating info from list of digital currencies (which I would also suggest is not needed). I like the idea of a page on cryptocurrencies, but at the moment, I think that cryptocurrencies should redirect to digital currency#Cryptocurrency. I also think that there should be a nice big warning at the top of every related page about any and all of these systems maybe scams, or, in the case of the centralised currencies, maybe shutdown by the govt. without notice (see e-gold & Liberty Reserve).**** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too bothered about removing the non-notable cryptocurrencies in the list of cryptocurrencies page (their lack of notability is why I didn't want them on the main page) and subsequently deleting the list page. The same goes for list of digital currencies, I'd only kept that huge list as someone else had added it, presumably because they thought it might be useful (so I figured someone else might find it useful too).

However, as I've said before, the cryptocurrency article has plenty of content, clearly meets the notability requirement (A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below.) and it is not a content fork, so it should stay. With regards to the worries that it was duplicating info from the other pages, I was going to remove that duplicate info from the digital currencies page, and put it in the cryptocurrencies page (though I don't really see the problem with two articles sharing a certain amount of info), but my edits were undone. As for the idea of having a warning, I share your worries, but Wikipedia doesn't give advice and isn't a guide, the criticism section is for listing what others have been worried by (here and here). Cliff12345 (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what a forky, spammy, crufty mess. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the cryptocurrency article, how is it forky and spammy? If your concern is that the digital currency page already has the content of the cryptocurrency page, that content is only there because someone copied and pasted it (this edit) from the cryptocurrency article after posting the AFD, I originally intended to simply have a link on the digital currency to the main content on the cryptocurrency page (because as I have explained earlier, there are a large number of sources for cryptocurrency, so it should be notable enough for an article). 86.178.30.79 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Note: I am Cliff12345[reply]

I've now edited the digital currency page so that the content for cryptocurrencies is only on the cryptocurrency page (link to the edit). 86.178.30.79 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very definition of forking and it changes nothing. In fact, it just makes information harder to find. There is nothing justifying seperation besides pure emotional preference. --KyleLandas (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained earlier, cryptocurrency is not a fork, it is a (notable) type of digital currency. I'll put it this way:

Wikipedia has an article on real numbers. A rational number is a type of real number, but rational numbers are notable, hence have their own article.
Wikipedia has an article on currency. The US dollar is a (type of) currency, but the US dollar is notable, hence has its own article.
Similarly, Wikipedia has an article on digital currency. A cryptocurrency is a type of digital currency, cryptocurrencies are notable, hence it should have its own article.

If your concern is that cryptocurrency shares some of the content and properties of digital currency, that's true, but the same could be said for the examples above. If your concern is that the cryptocurrency article could be put into the digital currency page, that's probably true, but Wikipedia doesn't delete articles just because they could be copied into a larger page (otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't have any articles of size less than 50000 bytes).

With regards to the concern it just makes information harder to find, surely having an article on cryptocurrency makes it easier to find. After all, if someone wants to find out about cryptocurrencies, there's a good chance they'll search for cryptocurrency, they may not want to have to look through some huge article about digital currencies. With regards to the concern There is nothing justifying seperation, the justification is that the topic is notable enough to warrant its own article, furthermore, having an article for cryptocurrencies will make it easier for a reader who is looking for information about cryptocurrencies, to find information about cryptocurrencies. 86.178.30.79 (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problems are obvious. The real issue is what to do with it. I suggest blowing it up starting over, but I welcome a radical fix immediately. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the problems are obvious - Are you talking about the cryptocurrency article (earlier I assumed you were), or the list of cryptocurrencies article? If it's the former, the problem isn't obvious to me (so please explain it). If it's the latter, I can see what you mean (I agree that the huge list seems a bit redundant. I left it there as I thought a few people might find it useful). Cliff12345 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with digital currency, as cryptocurrencies are a type of digital currency and the reader is not helped by breaking up the explanation into disparate short pages. Ross Fraser (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocurrencies are a notable topic (as can be seen by a quick search), this alone should be enough to ensure it has its own article. The fact that cryptocurrencies are a type of digital currency seems irrelevant, digital currencies are a type of alternative currency, rational numbers are a type of real number, but Wikipedia has separate articles on all of these topics. I think a reader would be helped by breaking the explanation up into smaller pages, if someone wants to learn what a cryptocurrency is, or a learn a few basic facts about them, I think they'd want to read an article about cryptocurrencies, not have to plough through some article about a more general topic. Taking the example above, if I want to read about rational numbers, I'll go to the rational numbers page, not the real numbers page, I wouldn't want the rational numbers page to be merged in, as that would force me to go through a much bigger article to find the stuff I actually want. 86.178.30.79 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If cryptocurrency is a notable topic itself, there is no reason not to create a breakout article from the original digital currency; cryptocurrency is a kind of digital currency, but it is not a synonym of digital currency. Cryptocurrencies are distributed and anonymous, whereas digital currencies like Zen or Linden dollars are based on a central issuer. The article has reliable sources like Technology Review and Ars Technica and a quick Google News search reveals articles at CNET and the Washington Post. GScholar shows multiple peer-reviewed articles on cryptocurrency. Multiple independent reliable sources show that the topic is notable per WP:GNG. The article is new and short, but already has some good sources and shows no major problems. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets burn some books shall we? Cryptocurrency is real. Its not a "fork" put the pitchforks away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakware (talk • contribs) 08:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted above, distinction and notability seem demonstrated. The real problem seems to me to be that the digital currency article is a horrid mess too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've hit on the nail on the head, digital currency page needs a revamp. -- Yablochko (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's pretty notable. It's been widely reported in the media, and is an accepted means of exchange in some narrow circles. "Blowing it up and starting over" is okay, but I don't think that warrants a merger with the digital currency article. While it is significantly different to digital currencies, except for the fact that all transactions occur over computer networks, that is besides the point I want to make. I think it falls into the wider category of "intangible currency", not inside the category of "digital currency". Additionally, there are many different cryptocurrencies, and there will be many more. So much so that a "cryptocurrency" section within another article will almost warrant an article in its own right. If this debate goes far enough, we'll have to be renaming "digital currency" to "intangible currency" so that "cryptocurrency" can fit inside it. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I can see, claims that the topic is a fork are incorrect (indeed, no justification for the claim was made). The distinction between digital currencies and cryptocurrencies is clear. It's also clear that the topic is notable given the large number of reliable, independent sources. I can't see any huge problem with the article that can't be fixed (and no justification for these claims has been made), so requests to blow it up seem unfounded and counterproductive. Cliff12345 (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has many sources, including Forbes and articles from major academic journals. There may be some quality issues, but I think it meets the standard for notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into digital currency. All the keep votes seem to be based on "it's notable and therefore it must have its own article". They have missed the important rider This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. This is a very clear case in which crypto and non-crypto digital currencies should be dealt with in the same article. They both need to address (or fail to address) the issues of forgery, duplication, divisibility, traceability, revokeability and so on. Duplicating these issues in two articles will lead to unending confusion. Comparing the different schemes has to be done in a single article. The fact that the articles do not yet cover these very important technical issues is no reason to make this split. This mess is all caused by using sources written by journalists who have no understanding of the technology. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent articulation. Just because the topic is notable in and of itself, doesn't mean it requires its own topic. The various digital currencies all share very important features, and face many of the same issues. The fact is, that at present, the cryptocurrencies are all based on Bitcoin (a point made in the article) and differ seemingly on minor technical (for usage purposes) differences. I'm unaware of any of the cryptocurrencies that implement an inflation based system (rather than the Bitcoin deflation system). So, until the cryptocurrencies actually differ from each other more (and not just on irrelevant technical details -- irrelevant in the same way that whether a physical coin is made from zinc or iron is irrelevant), I can't see the topic needing it's own article. (Besides, it makes it harder to make sure that people are pushing crap if the topic is spread over multiple articles.) **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my keep recommendation. While notability of a topic allows for breakout articles, distinction between cryptocurrency and digital currency is also important for such an endeavor. I pointed out some important differences between the two topics and and Yablochko did a better job of it below, backed up by the ECB, a reliable source. Your argument for a merge is based upon defining a currency by its functional requirements--but those functional requirements are broad enough to potentially merge many currency topics back together. Physical currencies also need to deal with forgery, duplication, divisibility, traceability, and revokeability; shall we merge in all physical currencies as well? I think not. In this case, organizing only by functional requirements is too broad a brush to paint the fundamental distinctions between these different types of currency. --Mark viking (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I re-read your keep vote and "it's notable and therefore it must have its own article" is a fair summary. Your claims about my merge vote are wandering strawmen. Dingo1729 (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.67.171 (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I think a lot of this debate hinges on the shortcomings of the digital currency page, which heavily duplicates cryptocurrency and seems to make an erroneous distinction with virtual money. We should defer to the ECB taxonomy (source), which uses the hybrid term "virtual currency", which covers closed systems (e.g. WoW gold), unidirectional flow systems (e.g. Facebook credits), and bidirectional flow systems (e.g. Linden dollars, Bitcoin). Cryptocurrencies are a subsection of bidirectional virtual currencies. Although they could be included within a virtual currency page, I think the topic is sufficiently distinct, complex, and nuanced to merit its own page. Also, the cryptocurrency page should acknowledge that many (most?) cryptocurrencies are scams. -- Yablochko (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2013 (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.