Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitBay

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. Sandstein 18:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BitBay[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Mark Biter (WP:SPA, creator) with the following rationale "The article has been updated with secondary, objective refferals to rewiews written by external parties.". I disagree. All sources are from the niche, wall-garden bitcoin online trade journals with dubious reporting standards. I see no reason to assume they are reliable and not republish press releases. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while there is no specific guideline for Cryptocurrency related articles, one view is that coverage in "trade rags" (Coindesk, CoinTelegraph, etc) is good, but not enough alone to pass notability tests. There should be at least one other instance of significant coverage of the topic in a non-trade reliable source. Perhaps someone with knowledge of Polish-language reliable sources could help in the standard AFD search... -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR: I am fluent in Polish and I didn't see anything except articles in Polish bitcoin zine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam; and presumably the OP is well versed in the Polish RS so if they could not find anything, then this is a rather hopeless case. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2016 (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.