Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptocurrency and Wikipedia

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocurrency and Wikipedia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

My proposed deletion stated "This is a couple unrelated items of trivia, not a notable cohesive topic that needs a standalone article. It just duplicates info at Wikimedia Foundation#Finances and First Wikipedia edit#Non-fungible token sale so seems pretty pointless." Dualpendel added a prod2 that said "not a cohesive topic for an article, not notable".

Czar said on the talk page, "The article currently consists of examples that read as trivia. What corpus of dedicated material on the topic justifies a standalone article?" JaggedHamster noted "On a related point, half the article is about NFTs, which aren't cryptocurrencies", and AndyTheGrump replied "Good point. I see the article has been PRODded. If that gets declined, I think an AfD is in order. If this was about anything but Wikipedia, it wouldn't stand a chance of remaining, and I see nothing in policy that resembles a navel-gazing exception to WP:N. To add to the above, since the section that is about cryptocurrency concerns the WMF, rather than Wikipedia, it appears that none of the content actually discusses the supposed subject."

Unclear why Kvng removed the prod and prod2 tags, as he failed to give any reason or address the concerns. Reywas92^Talk 05:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - talk page discussion and this nomination are clear about it not being a notable and cohesive topic, and the article contents don't relate to the article title. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my unanswered talk page comments copied above. There is no significant topical link in reliable sources between these two subjects. czar 09:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable topic. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the comments I made on the article talk page, as noted above. A collection of navel-gazing trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A third piece of random trivia has been added that the Bitcoin article saw a viewership spike when it was in the news. How exactly is that meaningful? Literally every topic that's ever in the news has a resultant increase in readers. Reywas92^Talk 14:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a cohesive topic and so is not notable.

Dualpendel (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable ForFawkesSake (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. This reminds me of the New Hampshire gadfly who connected Gene Robinson with PDF-Files in Boston. I mean, everything's a giant Venn diagram, but we don't have separate articles about them all. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can just move this into the draft space, I'll work on it later. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As others have noted, this is just a collection of trivia. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2025 (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.