Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Currency converter (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 redirect to Exchange rate. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 03:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Currency converter
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-referenced, does not meet GNG. May be WP:SYNTH EpicPupper (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is a weird nomination, and I'm no fan of articles for commercial ephemera. These are very notable, popular programs people use routinely in daily life, and which are even included in the Library of Congress. They're popular trial applications built in the process of learning software engineering, and covered in scholarly sources in this role (gscholar gets 6,110 results, many of which don't suck). Tech news is also concerned with them (1, 2, 3). Also see the tourist interest demonstrated by Piotrus in the previous nomination. Vaticidalprophet 20:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to exchange rate (which is what currency conversion currently redirects to). I have spent some time looking for RSes for this article on Google Scholar and found lots about currency conversion in general and little substantial about currency converters, the category: the best hits I found was 'Lemaire, P. and Lecacheur, M., 2001. Older and younger adults' strategy use and execution in currency conversion tasks: Insights from French franc to euro and euro to French franc conversions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(3), p.195.' While as  observes, it seems strange that such a familiar topic falls foul of our GNG, if we can't furnish RSes, we are better off removing unverifiable information. As noted in the last AfD, this particular coatrack is a hygiene problem for us, since we are an attractive place for currency converter websites to advertise their wares. In general, our coverage of currency conversion is poor, since this is a substantial topic in accounting that goes beyond what we can cover in the exchange rate article; see e.g. with respect to the UK section 30 of FRS 102, which is current accounting practice for overseas-currency-denominated financial assets in financial statements, and which has been extensively commented upon. If I could wave a magic wand, I would want us to have a good article on currency conversion, with a short section on currency converters which the AfD subject is a redirect to. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thoughts here: I basically concur with this, but it doesn't feel like cause to redirect to me. It feels like that's better handled through renaming and rewriting this article to have a more coherent focus, rather than converting it to a redirect and then having to start another article via another redirect from scratch, with according issues attributing histories. Vaticidalprophet 02:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with a merge outcome to this AfD if I thought someone would actually do the work to properly realise this outcome. I wouldn't be happy with the continued existence of this content at this article name unless I felt sure that the hygiene problem I discussed was manageable and that someone would actually hunt down enough RSes to meet the GNG. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are enough RSes to meet the GNG even if we go just with the narrow currency-converter topic, let alone "currency conversion with section on converter software". Are any wikiprojects on this topic active or are they all moribund? I can see this ending in WP:HEY, but I'm unconvinced I can personally handle the subject matter, and it'd be good to get more eyes on. Vaticidalprophet</b> 12:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't need to see a WP:HEY improvement to be reassured on my verifiability concern if we had a keep or no consensus outcome to this AfD: simply having the plausible-but-not-obvious claims in the article be deleted would be enough, given that the sources you have found are not far away from GNG quality and I am satisfied there are more. But regarding the hygiene risk presented by the article, your suggestion of renaming the article and changing its contents so currency converters is just a subsection is nontrivial editing work, and with respect to involving a relevant wikiproject, most wikiprojects are not up to the job of providing oversight for this kind of article. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:NAD, reads like an Essay, alternatively a redirect to currency conversion CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your alternate suggestion, redirect to 'currency conversion', isn't an immediately available option for us at the moment, since that is a redirect. Would you be happy, as an alternative, to redirect to 'exchange rate'; the current target of that redirect? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to exchange rate - I think Charles Stewart has it right there. The content is unsourced, and actual topic-specific sources seem hard to find. Yes, we all know it's a thing and it feels like it should be possible to write an article on the topic, but absent demonstrably applicable sources, that doesn't gain us anything. (I'm baffled by how all the iterations of "there should be sources" managed to carry the day in the last round - it's plain inapplicable.) Redirected isn't deleted and salted; if suitable material turns up, anyone can revive this as a standalone. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.