Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bittrex

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. Tone 08:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bittrex

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is more than just the one currently in the article.

November 29, 2017 "Crypto exchange Bittrex warns traders against 'pump and dump' scams" Business Insider

May 31, 2018 "Bittrex Gets Bank Agreement to Help You Buy Bitcoin With Dollars" Bloomberg

August 23, 2018 "Cryptocurrency exchange Bittrex teams with registered trading venue Rialto" Reuters

April 10, 2019 "Bittrex virtual currency license rejected by New York financial regulator" Reuters

May 9, 2019 "Government Enforcement in the Cryptocurrency Space The National Law Review

June 10, 2019 "Bittrex Blocks US-based Users From Trading in 32 Cryptocurrencies" International Business Times

January 10, 2020 "After hackers stole $1M in cryptocurrency, Bellevue venture capitalist launched PR blitz against local company he blames" The Seattle Times

January 14, 2020 "State reverses ruling on cryptocurrency exchange sued by Bellevue venture capitalist" The Seattle Times Ҥ (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are churnalism, based entirely on information from Bittrex, so fail WP:NCORP:

BI 2017-11-29: info entirely from Bittrex

Bloomberg 2018-05-31: info entirely from Bittrex

Reuters 2018-08-23: info entirely from Bittrex

IBTimes 2019-06-10: literally just from a Bittrex blog post (and IBTimes is "generally unreliable" per WP:RSP, so not a source of notability)

These sources exist because they're about a local millionaire - they don't exist because of notability on Bittrex's part:

Seattle Times 2020-01-10: local coverage about a local millionaire buying ads, that happen to be against Bittrex

Seattle Times 2020-01-14: local coverage of the same local millionaire

These two might pass, but they're just about Bittrex's failure to be up to achieving a license:

Reuters 2019-04-10

NLR

So you've presented two sources that aren't churnalism and might plausibly connote notability, and they're both about Bittrex's inadequacy - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 23 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.

It can do, if their incompetence is sufficiently notable. Two mentions of failing to get a license doesn't seem enough to swing an article on - David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.