Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Currency converter

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currency converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Poorly-sourced article about currency converter software that seems to fail WP:GNG. The article is built entirely upon original research and apparently serves as a coatrack for adding spam links. I am unable to find any sources that discuss currency converter software as a cohesive topic. There are many books that describe how to code a currency converter, but nothing that covers the subject from an encyclopedic standpoint. - MrX 14:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - MrX 14:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge Currency conversion is a significant issue in trade, economics and accounting. Unfortunately, currency conversion is just a redirect and it won't help if the title in question is made a red link too. As the nominator observes, there are many books which talk about aspects of the topic - over 11,000 it seems. There are therefore reasonable alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- simply finding a bunch of google hits that have the words "currency" and "conversion" in them does not help to make an article. I've done some looking around, and I agree with the nominator that there is nothing with which to build a coherent article. The current content is a sourceless essay serving as a coatrack for all kinds of spammy links, so it should be deleted. Reyk _YO! 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – the article itself is in a lousy condition, but the subject itself is significant and documented. Harej (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is a poorly referenced stub, but the topic is likely notable. Here's a reliable source: a short but reliable entry in theA & C Black Publishers Ltd (1 January 2009). Dictionary of Leisure, Travel and Tourism. A&C Black. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-4081-0212-1.. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just because there is such a thing as software which calculates currency conversion does not mean it's notable. We have no article on the calculator utilities that come with every OS and smartphone. Why? Because there's no secondary coverage. In order to keep this article, it would need to be an article on the general idea of currency conversion software (not just the idea of currency exchange), and to do that, we'd need secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: topic meets WP:GNG, the article's referencing and content issues can be fixed via normal editing (see WP:BEFORE § c2), and, thus, the issues are not a valid rationale for AfD. Esquivalience ^t 00:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is bare on references, but the article seems like it can be improved in the future. The topic is notable enough to be added on or referenced, and I see no evidence of spam or advertising. DSCrowned^(talk) 09:09, 10 March 2015 (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.