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 merge to List of circulating currencies. THere is unfortunately little doubt that this is not a notable concept (violating various parts of WP:NOT), and since little policy based support for it was forthcoming and it can easily be accommodated elsewhere, a merge seems appropriate. Black Kite ( talk) 00:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Highest-valued currency unit

Highest-valued currency unit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

A particularly stupid and pointless article consisting entirely of original research, violates WP:NOTABILITY and by its nature runs afoul of WP:OR. There's not a single reliable source provided to show that there is such a concept as "Highest valued currency unit" or "Least valued currency unit" outside of Wikipedia (only a link to a web page which has exchange rates). That's because there are no such sources. Google books, after subtracting off Wikipedia reprints gives 1 hit, which looks like a reprint as well [1]. Google scholar gives 3 hits, one of which appears to be a Wikipedia mirror/reprint and the other two are not reliable and are accidental, if not also mirrors [2]. Google itself (you know, that search engines that usually gives hundreds of thousands of hits) yields a measly 84 hits, after Wikipedia mirrors are subtracted off. And those 84 hits themselves appear to be mostly Wikipedia mirrors that haven't been properly filtered out. On top of that the concept is pretty meaningless and useless. No textbooks write about "highest valued currency units". No scholarly papers. No books. Because it wouldn't make much sense (why not state that the "100 dollar bill is the highest valued currency unit?). It only exists on Wikipedia in a form of this silly article which serves no encyclopedic purpose. Rather it's just a magnet for various edit warriors who think that if one's country's currency unit is "higher valued" then that means that the penis size of their country must also be bigger. Delete this nonsense.  Volunteer Marek  18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages for obvious reasons:

Least-valued currency unit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge I had a look around for other articles that list currencies, and it seems like the info can just be tacked on as a new column to List of circulating currencies, perhaps? Also, the article is a clear case for deletion if you bring up WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but as I said, I'd be happier seeing the cost of one unit in USD as a column on an already existing table. EditorInTheRye ( talk) 21:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment these are nice lists and somewhat interesting to me. However I fail to see the point of the highest, and even more so the lowest value currencies, although a list of all currencies may be better. The biggest problems is that the lists are not comparing like for like.
  • First they do not take into account the values of notes and coins in circulation. The UK is the fifth most valuable currency (ex. Bitcoin), the most valuable note is the £50 (77US$), and these are rarely seen. Costa Rica is the 25th least valuable and the most valuable note is the C50,000 (94US$) i.e. more than the biggest sterling note. Similarly the smallest coins are worth 1.5c and 0.94c, i.e. similar values despite the places in the lists.
  • Second they do not take into account wages and the cost of living. Currencies should be based upon what coins/notes it is reasonable to carry around with you. If a loaf of bread in one country costs 1/10 of that in the US, it stands to reason that most notes/coins will also have a value of 1/10 of the US dollar.
  • The comment that the Zambian Kwacha was rebased 1000:1 and is no-longer on the least valued list shows why there are big problems with the lists being called "Highest" and "Least", although it would be nice to have all the currancies somewhere. Martin451 00:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • A list you say? It's always in the last place you look... tutterMouse ( talk) 09:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete No sources discuss the concept; by that definition, it's not notable. It may be interesting and useful, but neither of those is a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 09:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete This article is primarily a list of exchange rates, which (in addition to probably breaking WP:NOTSTATSBOOK) fluctuate constantly. Unless updated continually (like the currency exchange database which serves as the article's only source) this information will consistently run the risk of becoming obselete. It looks like the numbers haven't been updated in almost two weeks either, including the 3 or so days it was locked for edit warring. Hoping this AfD discussion will be more civil than big sections of that article's talk page. Breadblade ( talk) 22:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep This article provides an informative source of information. It is not "original" because it is based on current exchange information. Further, the rates do not fluctuate that much. In general, rates are consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzi777 ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

There are no sources which discuss the concept of a "Highest-valued currency unit". If someone on Wikipedia came up with it, then went and got exchange rates and made some calculations, even if the exchange rate info is legit, that is still a quintessential instance of WP:Original research.  Volunteer Marek  20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weak keepAlmost all the arguments given for deleting this are either incorrect or invalid. It is NOT original research, and per WP:GHITS Google search results are not a valid argument in deletion discussions. And the analogy at the bottom is incorrect and inappropriate. 2Awwsome ^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 17:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Arguments for deletion are that it's not notable and original research. You have not addressed these arguments, merely asserted, without justification that "It is NOT original research". Backing that up would require providing reliable sources which establish notability, but as the searches show, such sources simply do not exist. In this instances WP:GHITS is inapplicable - there's still no evidence of any notability.  Volunteer Marek  20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It's not original research because it's sourced. And it is applicable, stop using Google to back up your points. 2Awwsome ^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

You need to read WP:OR again I'm afraid.  Volunteer Marek  21:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It's not original research, the exchange rates are as they are in the source. Unless ordering them is original research in your opinion? See WP:CALC. 2Awwsome ^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 14:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

And also (I quote) "A particularly stupid and pointless article". Seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. 2Awwsome ^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 19:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Btw, I think that merging these articles into List of currencies or List of circulating currencies would be perfectly fine.  Volunteer Marek  21:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Um, well I just relied on this article, along with its counterpart Highest-valued currency unit to quantify a software-implemented risk in currency exchange. I verified that "Kuwaiti dinars" are indeed far higher than for example pounds sterling. These are verifiable facts, even if they are volatile and subject to change. I'd wager the original nominator saw his country's currency and for some reason let that affect his judgment. No one is thinking of "penis size" when they read exchange rates except you, bro. Shiggity ( talk) 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

NOT a valid reason for keeping. People rely on all kinds of stuff (including silly stuff) all the time. Doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. And if you really think that "highest value" of a currency has something to do with return on currency speculation or inherent risk ... let me suggest in sincere good faith that you take your money and put it in a bank at .0005%. At least it will still be there in the future.  Volunteer Marek  21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

All this really establishes is that xe.com is useful, since everything in this article was pulled off there. Breadblade ( talk) 03:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment If you have a look at share price there's a little trivia sentence on what the most expensive share price has been. Do the same with this info and add it to Exchange rate, perhaps? Also, I'm noticing that Exchange rate and currency pair are quite well-written articles, and I can find no hint whatsoever of a "most valuable unit" being something important to the editors that have contributed to them. Lastly, I found the article Tables of historical exchange rates to the United States dollar, which is yet another contender for the article to merge into, just add a column to show this year's exchange rate. EditorInTheRye ( talk) 22:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep There is a well established precedent for reference tables on Wikipedia. This table is quite useful and well sourced and should thus remain on here. Travelbird ( talk) 10:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The table really is NOT useful in any meaningful sense. It is not well sourced. Not a single source is provided that a concept of "highest valued currency unit" exists outside of wikipedia (it doesn't because such a concept is meaningless). Even then "is useful" is not a legitimate argument in a deletion discussion. And there is no precedent for 'reference tables', whatever those are.  Volunteer Marek  11:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Then what would you call the comparison table of the different motion picture rating systems that is at the top of the article, eh? That's certainly a reference table to me. As are the tables showing the chronology of the different automobile marques and the models they produced. And that's only scratching. Now, could the table be better cited? Definitely. I certainly find this table to be quite useful. Hence, to me it's a strong Keep. - Dan 72.87.116.62 ( talk) 15:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I get that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but the reference tables you are referring to are well-sourced and refer to relatively static phenomena. Currency figures copied infrequently from a single exchange rate database are going to be inaccurate for long periods of time, so I wouldn't even be willing to say that the table is WP:USEFUL. Either way, pointing to other articles and claiming usefulness aren't great arguments to make in deletion discussions. Breadblade ( talk) 16:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I think this article has a valid point and it deserves to stay. It's common knowledge for people to know what are the highest valued currencies in the world and a lot of people search Google for it. The article can have a more rich content like for example, why Kuwaiti Dinar is considered so high in value etc.. I think pointing to a webpage with an exchange rates as a referral, is only normal since exchange rates are one way to show the value of that particular currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaled617 ( talk • contribs) — Khaled617 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't agree with several of the OP's opening statement. The list is not "stupid and pointless" and the concept is not "meaningless and useless". There is a clear and understandable meaning that some might well find WP:INTERESTING.

But the OP does have a policy-based point that is not addressed by those who want to keep. There do not seem to be any sources. The list is OR and will always be so. The list is, by definition, continually out-of-date. Policy, I believe, thus requires that we either merge or delete. Kahastok talk 20:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Could somebody explain why there has to be two pages for this (a lowest and highest page)? Why not just a "list of exchange rates" where visitors can click column headers to sort the values? The fact that they exist as such makes me believe the (however ridiculous it sounds) "penis size" argument more.

I think the proposals to merge the page address this. However I don't think it would make sense to have a "list of exchange rates" page, with current currency values either. Exchange rates change daily. Or actually even hourly or minute by minute (depending on which currency you're talking about and the volume of trade). What is usually reported at sites like xe.com is the average or closing rates. Anyway, even with daily rates, or weekly rates etc. it wouldn't make sense to have such a page as it'd have to be continually updated. That's just not a kind of purpose that an encyclopedia is well suited for. We don't have a page that lists current stock prices (never mind "highest valued stocks") and we shouldn't have this one either.  Volunteer Marek  22:22, 11 November 2013 (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.