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.
No evidence nor claim of notability. A single RS mention given.
WP:BEFORE shows crypto site coverage, but very little in RSes beyond passing mentions. Challenged PROD, but issues not addressed by challenger.
David Gerard (
talk)
12:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)reply
David Gerard, how are you determining that info is entirely from Bittrex for these sources? Doesn't coverage of inadequacy in reliable sources contribute positively to a case for notability? ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)reply
By reading the actual articles - they say the info was from Bittrex.
Delete As nom highlighted, a lot of the coverages are mainly churnalism as they're mainly initiated by interviews with the execs of the article's subject. As the
Nat Law Review pointed, the company has failed to secure license, which may also suggest that it fails GNG for
WP:NCORP. At its current state and all the puff taken out from edits of account that may some form of COI from SPA (just look at histories of all the red accounts since 2018), the article barely even meets the GNG for
WP:ORGCRIT. --
Infogapp1 (
talk)
22:06, 27 September 2020 (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.
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.
No evidence nor claim of notability. A single RS mention given.
WP:BEFORE shows crypto site coverage, but very little in RSes beyond passing mentions. Challenged PROD, but issues not addressed by challenger.
David Gerard (
talk)
12:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)reply
David Gerard, how are you determining that info is entirely from Bittrex for these sources? Doesn't coverage of inadequacy in reliable sources contribute positively to a case for notability? ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)reply
By reading the actual articles - they say the info was from Bittrex.
Delete As nom highlighted, a lot of the coverages are mainly churnalism as they're mainly initiated by interviews with the execs of the article's subject. As the
Nat Law Review pointed, the company has failed to secure license, which may also suggest that it fails GNG for
WP:NCORP. At its current state and all the puff taken out from edits of account that may some form of COI from SPA (just look at histories of all the red accounts since 2018), the article barely even meets the GNG for
WP:ORGCRIT. --
Infogapp1 (
talk)
22:06, 27 September 2020 (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.