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. David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bitget[edit]

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)

There are plenty of sources, but they appear to be unreliable, PR, or blogspam. Not seeing in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would indicate that this company meets WP:GNG, or meets WP:NCORP. Previously deleted this July (2023). —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There hasn't been much change in terms of coverage useful for our notability standards since July. There is such a major gap between any of the available sourcing the type of coverage which would be eligible to establish notability under WP:NCORP, that the refbomb would be strongly indicative of such eligible sources not existing were I to assume the ability to differentiate. Even without that, it is still additional evidence thereof by a number of factors. Additionally, while the tone is not quite entirely promotional throughout to the point of meeting WP:DELREASON#4, it is nonetheless not suitable for an encyclopaedia, which also demonstrates the difficulty of basing an article on the questionable sources available. This is thus delete from me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the additional comments. I have since updated the content to help improve the article.

  WP:NCORP When I first drafted this article, I felt I had included significant coverage for a 5 year old company in emerging tech. I noted that the previous article contained press releases and primary sources so I researched independent sources that meet the reliable source standards for this new article.

  RELIABLE SOURCES I have included tech blogs and articles from premium media that may require access via paywall. They don't appear to be sponsored and are written by independent finance or tech writers. The sources I reference also have detail and are not merely announcements or mentions of Bitget.

  REFBOMB. The article is readable. Citations are only used to substantiate the content. Where needed, I have added multiple sources but have not added them for basic statements.

  For me it's a keep. WPweb3 (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which are the "premium media" sources you had in mind? The most reliable sources cited are SCMP, Bloomberg, and Axios, but none of those do anything more than mention Bitget in passing. They do not have any in-depth coverage of the company; not even a full sentence of coverage. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Ganesha811, yes SCMP and Bloomberg to name a couple but now added printed publications also based on research papers sourced. You can see depth in content, not just single mentions. WPweb3 (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are not peer-reviewed publications, they are "studies" and "surveys" conducted by Bitget itself. Even given that, the new sources appear to have little in the way of in-depth coverage. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Referring to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) We have established that the sources I have cited are 1. independent; 2. reputable; 3. secondary (some sources have significant coverage of Bitget's primary study's but I have not referred to primary sources for studies. Are you suggesting the reason for deletion is because I am missing significant coverage? The articles I recently added all cover the article subject with eg. more than a single sentence. I am referring to other tech companies like IBM for standards, interestingly they are citing primary research directly. Thanks for your feedback. WPweb3 (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Who is "we" in "we have established"? I disagree with all your points. It doesn't seem likely we'll persuade one another, so I will hold off on any further comments and let the discussion run its course. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Disappointing to see how quickly this was recreated after the first AFD decision to Delete. This AFD might close differently but this should have gone through AFC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly promotional, but might have enough notability to be worth keeping. There are over 1000 results for the subject on ProQuest (although many of them might be press releases). - Indefensible (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"might have enough notability" isn't helpful in an AfD discussion. Are you able to point out any specific references that show this meets notability guidelines? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I reviewed first nom, the article, and this nom and I agree with arguments in first nom and Ganesha811's arguments here. The REFBOMB is all unreliable, PR, spam. There is nothing that changes the result of first nom. Could be deleted as G11 or G4, or even G5, the user that created the first deleted article is blocked for socking, this is likely a recreation by a sock. Tehonk (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - References are all cryptoblogs or press releases. I find nothing that would be significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @CNMall41 I created this article and I reviewed all the sources via my library research database, ensuring none of them are press releases or company-sponsored. The only ones that may seem like press releases are the ones from third parties relating to their Messi and Juventus sponsorships. Examples of notable citations include the ones from Fortune [2], Bloomberg [3], South Morning China Post [35-36], CCData is a third party market report [15], Nikkei Asia [21], Bangkok Post [29]. Have you read these citations? Some are behind a paywall. These are all in the list of Wikipedia:Reliable sources

  Again, I am trying to see the advertising tone/ spam you are referring to - I don't see how my article is "blatant advertising". I have written with no opinions, just facts or what the independent sources have stated and nonjudgmental language with sources that are not just passing mentions.

  Also, sorry G4 and G5 do not relate to me. I will continue to work on my other articles but yes Fintech is one of my interest areas. WPweb3 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about the promotional tone (although it does have it). My comment is strictly based on notability. Just because something is in a reliable source does not meet it counts for notability. I have been quoted in many publications related to healthcare tech but I would come no where near qualifying for a page. It is all about the depth, not just existing. I have looked at the references on the page and also looked for additional online. Unfortunately, my assessment that this does not meet notability guidelines wouldn't change. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 The promotional tone was in response to @Tehonk and I refer to Wikipedia definitions to promotional tone of which my article is not. During this Afd, I am trying to continue to improve the article so I am asking for your feedback on specific areas in my article that you think fall into this category.

Examples from Forbes [3], Bloomberg [4], CCData [15], Bangkok Post [29] are all reporting specifically on the article topic and top industry peers - not passing mention, not just a single quote. It's technology not historical subject so sources are not all scholarship or printed publications. Thanks all for your comments but I would be grateful for more specifics to help improve this article. WPweb3 (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just being in a reliable source doesn't mean that the reference itself establishes notability. It must be compared using WP:SIRS. The sources do not meet that requirement. Also, above you were asked about the "we" in "we have established." Can you address that question? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Yes, I meant "we" as in this thread. However you disagree. I've tried to show that all the citations are:

1. significant coverage - as per my above comment. Eg. Forbes is not a profile or writer from Forbes Contributor and meets all 4 notability requirements.

2. independent - I am and the article is written independently from article subject. Happy to answer any questions you have around this.

3. reputatable - global news sources. They may not be all be Western but I try to write with diversity and inclusion in mind. Reference to tech blogs - I have triple checked and they are not self-published sources are written by a tech or finance writer/ journo.

4. secondary - with the exception of the proof of reserves data all are not primary

To avoid any grey areas that contributors may deem as promotional or trivial is their sponsorship of esports events. WPweb3 (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the context of the Forbes article? Is it about Bitget or does it mention it in context with something else? See WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, one is Forbes.com and the other is Forbes Advisor UK and they both write about Bitget specificities. The UK Editor article has multiple reports on Bitget in the cryptocurrency sector, over a number of months. WPweb3 (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree. The article may be notable, but I'm far more concerned on the fact that a good amount of it appears promotional and the sources are not reliable. I would think this article fails WP:NCORP.

TheBritinator (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please highlight for me which areas are promotional? WPweb3 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is a topic you care about, but please try to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. I've fallen into that trap before myself, and I know how easy it is to do. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 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.