Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cryptocurrencies


 * 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 Cryptocurrency. This is a compromise decision made to meet the valid concerns and suggestions in both the keep and delete votes. Many of those who called for keeping the list as a separate article also suggested that several of the non-notable entries on the list ought to be removed. However, there seems to be a reasonable consensus that most of the cryptocurrencies in the list are too obscure for any coverage, and since removing them from the list would make the article a rather short one, so short in fact that the need for a separate WP:SUBARTICLE becomes less obvious. As the delete voters pointed out, the Cryptocurrency article already has a list on the most notable cryptocurrencies, and some who bolded the "delete" part of the vote have explicitly endorsed redirecting the page. The title "List of cryptocurrencies" is a plausible redirect. Since there may be parts of the article worth merging, I am keeping the article history. Sjakkalle (Check!)  21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

List of cryptocurrencies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A controversial list of a bunch of currencies in which the majority of are redlinks to non-existant articles. Little to no sources outside of forum posts and exchange sites. Would not be opposed to a merging with Cryptocurrency. Currently neutral. [ citation needed  ] 01:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep at current state -- per WP:CSC -- Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 02:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete if the article is changed back to only listing cryptocurrencies with articles, as the content is in Cryptocurrency. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 02:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - the Cryptocurrency article currently contains a "Notable cryptocurrencies" subsection, and is of readable length. As wikipedia is not a directory or for promotion, non-notable currencies (those not meeting WP:GNG) have no place in any article, and this article is redundant.Dialectric (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator has not added a deletion notice to the page itself. Pburka (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The page was/is protected, so the nominator could not add the template. A request to add was posted to the talk page, and an admin has since added the template.Dialectric (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Article not needed if the list is already in the main article. Unnotable things should not be listed. Borock (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 11:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 11:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 11:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 11:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. It seems a WP:POVFORK of the main article to include a lot of non-notable or barely notable examples. Heck, most of them don't even have any kind of references. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So then trim it, don't delete it. Who knows, in a years time there will be a thousand different cryptocurrencies, so change it so that the list contains the ten biggest ones with reliable sources. The hasty deletion seems very blunt. 83.109.2.131 (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete - Already tried trimming it down to the ones with reasonable sources, which resulted in roughly the same list as the one in the cryptocurrency article. This did not stop SPA users from continually spamming the list with the unnotable ones. Merging the few missing notable entries (Dogecoin, Primecoin) to cryptocurrency seems to be the best option. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep But delete non-notable ones (all currencies below 1 million market capitalization need to go).' — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia's point of view market cap is not an indicator of notability. It also cannot be determined without reliable sources and, for most cryptocurrencies, seems to be extremely volatile. Smite-Meister (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Just clean all the doubtful and spammy ones. YubbaDoo (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a wikipedia policy based reason for your argument? As it is, it looks like WP:JUSTAVOTE Dialectric (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject is definitely notable, and I don't have anything against a list of cryptocurrencies by itself. However, a large number of the listed cryptocurrencies are temporary fads with little or no significance or coverage, not warranting coverage on Wikipedia. The currencies worth listing are few and are adequately listed in Cryptocurrency, where I think the list should stay (and so delete the list to avoid forking). ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 00:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete (Redirect). The list of notable currencies can be (and already is) included in digital currency and cryptocurrency. This list is an unnecessary WP:SPLIT that in reality only serves to host non-notable currencies and ends up being promotional. There are not enough items to warrant a split at this point. Trimming the list off non-notable entries just leaves the same content as already in parent articles. I don't believe simply being a member of the group (WP:CSC#3) is a valid criteria for this list, as the list is ultimately indiscriminate. There are sources like, but they are similarly endless lists arranged by criteria that is not relevant to GNG. When individual currencies become notable, we can include then, not before. When the list becomes too large for the main article(s), we can split it. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge A major problem is that people keep adding coins because they are listed in coinmarketcap.com, which is not a suitable source. A lot of coins have interesting features, but they have to have reputable sources. Few coins do actually have reputable sources. It is frustrating to see people constantly add coins based on something like coinmarketcap.com or its own website, or using Wikipedia for promotion. Until people get the !#@$ message, I cannot vote for keep. Eventually this article will have its own page, but there's the guideline, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm not opposed to redirecting/merging; less maintenance and cryptocurrency does cover this topic since the list is short. - Sidelight 12 Talk 04:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cryptocurrency. That article is not so large that it can't have a short list inside it, which will omit all the sundry minor cryptocurrencies.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep and cleanup, possibly rename. Too extensive to merge into cryptocurrency (which should be about the technical concept) even after cleaning up cruft.  The table in cryptocurrency should be removed, replaced with a text description mentioning the most prominent examples (that mostly means Bitcoin), and a "see also" to the "list" page.  I found the article/list while looking for altcoin which turns out to be a redlink at the moment.  That might be a more suitable move/merge target than cryptocurrency if some text is added. The proliferation of altcoins is a notable phenomenon which economist Tyler Cowan claims will have economic repercussions for the larger ones.  Notability should of course be determined by review of sources (like for anything else), not by "market cap", as a lot of interesting concepts that have been documented in the literature are worth including, even if they didn't get any traction financially. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How is a table of 7 entries "too extensive"? Smite-Meister (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean the big table of 50 or so in the "list" article is too extensive to include in the main cryptocurrency article. That article should be expanded a lot, and while the current 50-ish in the list page can possibly be pared down temporarily, it will keep expanding as more of these coins appear and gain notability.  You can even generate your own with a web app.  If the list page is merged to cryptocurrency it will probably have to be split out again before long.  Type "Coinye West" (currently missing from the big list) into a search engine, and weep. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The big table of 50 or so unnotable, unsourced "currencies" should not exist on Wikipedia in the first place. Right now just the 7 cryptocurrencies I mentioned above have demonstrably both notability and sources, some of them only barely. If you can provide sufficient sources for Coinye I guess that would make it eight. Smite-Meister (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And I've just created Coinye West two days ago, as a matter of fact. There's also a steaming pile of controversy with the rapper launching cease and desist letters, so I'm hopeful that if it even goes over to AfD, it will survive the process just like Dogecoin. However, this list fails criteria one and two of WP:CSC. If you really want to think about it, the list is basically a de facto WP:PROMO violation as the majority of these coins have no articles and are simply added on to by SPAs. Citation Needed  &#x007C;  Talk  20:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CSC. --Sanya3 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you have made the same argument as User:Surfer43, also without elaborating. As point 1 and 2 of CSC do not apply here, it seems you are referencing 3, which is defined as "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." No compelling argument has been made for why otherwise non-notable currencies belong on wikipedia, and it is unclear how this article could ever be a 'complete list' of all cryptocurrencies.Dialectric (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - unlike my comments at Articles for deletion/Comparison of anonymous exchangers of digital currency, this appears to be a valid list. We can edit out the unsourced cruft in the normal course of editing. No list has to be complete and perfect. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but only list notable entries. That is common practice for lists. If it means it's too small, merge. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Currently there seem to be 8 notable or barely notable entries. Smite-Meister (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete. The Cryptocurrency article already has a list of notable cryptocurrencies. Notable cryptocurrencies are the only ones that should be listed anywhere in wikipedia. We don't need a separate article that lists (in addition to the list in Cryptocurrency) both "major" (whatever that means) and "all" cryptocurrencies. Let's maintain a single list of notable cryptocurrencies as a section of Cryptocurrency. At some point in the future, if that list becomes too long, we can split it off as a separate article. For the time being, there are too few notable ones to require a separate article, much less three separate lists (four if you include Comparison of anonymous cryptocurrencies). Chris Arnesen 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. As noted, Cryptocurrency covers notable cryptocurrencies. A list of all cryptocurrencies, including non-notable entries, becomes promotional and is not appropriate for coverage. I would suggest merging, but there doesn't seem to be any reliably-sourced content that would be of use. --Agyle (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.