Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitget

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bitget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Routine coverage, fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - made of press releases and passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - yes, there are a lot of press releases cited but I see enough less sketchy sources to meet notability requirements: [1], [2], [3]. ~Kvng (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Vanguard Nigeria's article is without a byline, so it is likely a press release/brand post. National Post's article is about an event, not about the company. We need more than routine coverage. US-Verified (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is what we call a WP:REFBOMB. It was almost all press releases and press release reprints - these fail WP:NCORP. I've just cut the article back to what might plausibly be actual news coverage - David Gerard (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Above I have pulled out the WP:THREE strongest sources and I beleive notability requirements are met by these. The WP:REFBOMB crap can be deleted but the presence of this crap is not a valid reason to delete. Improve, don't delete crappy articles on notable subjects. WP:DEMOLISH, WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced that getting kicked out of Singapore rates a Wikipedia article by WP:NCORP or WP:GNG - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like you're trying to apply WP:1E to an organization. Can we do that? What part of WP:NCORP is not being met here? ~Kvng (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a review of whether Kvng's three sources are sufficient to establish GNG would help bring this discussion to closure. Thanks for clearing out the crap.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Nothing in the article meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Looking at the THREE sources mentioned above:

• This is in the Washington Post is about the suspension of the company's exchange following a "scandal". A slightly longer article in the National News reports the same facts with additional comments from chief market strategist at Century Financial in Dubai. They're just a sample of two reports, but many more exist all reporting the same facts. But none provide any in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
• This in Vanguard is simply regurgitated PR, fails ORGIND.

None of the THREE meet GNG/NCORP criteria and I am unable to locate anything that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Changing my !vote above. The sources I identified are not making the cut per analysis by HighKing and David Gerard. Thanks for that. ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2023 (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.