Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crypto naming controversy (2nd nomination) - Wikipedia

Article Images

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. There was no support for a proposed merge into Cryptocurrency, but that shouldn't stop any editor from adding sourced content to that page. Owen× ☎ 17:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability at minimum requires verifiability in reliable secondary sources of the existence of the article subject: a "controversy" (in cryptography or among cryptographers and professionals in crypto) per title. This was not discussed substantially at the first PROD.
After 3 years, the article has not improved -- there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources that verify the existence of a controversy. The Vice article in section 3 is the only source in the article that actually talks about such a controversy, but it is problematic: it quotes 3 people in online correspondence with no further links: one academic complains about the word "crypto", while another defends language usage generally; the third is a tech professional complaining about the word. It is providing 2 complaints (plus the author's) about the word, but not attempting to report a wider controversy, in academia or the tech professions or anywhere. The rest of the article -- dictionary definitions and all -- becomes WP:SYNTH if the existence of the subject is not firmly established.
There is an option to merge the Vice article into cryptocurrency, but I question whether any of the other quotes in the 3rd section could be due (here or anywhere). SamuelRiv (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Cryptocurrency, and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see evidence of a major "controversy", just a few people complaining. This doesn't rise to the level of notable for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does appear SYNTH. This could perhaps be solved with a disambiguation page for both terms, but nothing beyond that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: There do exist many naming controversies in academic fields, of various degrees of pettiness. What makes them notable is their extensive coverage in major secondary sources. One of my favorites (which my dad was amid and first told me about) (for which we don't have a separate article) is the black hole/trou noir dirty word controversy (think about it, and also remember that black holes have no hair). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article into cryptocurrency per WP:ATD. There is some significant WP:RS that talks about the shift in the meaning of crypto towards cryptocurrency, and that information should be kept on Wikipedia. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another idea: how about we move this article to crypto and then move the disambiguation page to crypto (disambiguation)? PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme no. The primary topic of "crypto" would be "cryptocurrency" or "cryptography" long before an article on the debate of the use of the prefix. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:03, 16 September 2024 (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.