Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ItBit

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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ItBit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

PRODed by Piotrus and I concur nothing here actually establishes genuine substance for actual notability and an improvable article and that's because it's simply clear PR by clear PR sources and that alone is against our no-advertising policies, thus there's nothing to show actual establishment by this company since it's simply being funded itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons I stated in prod. Prod declined by a user who has been indefbanned since (User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR). Unfortunately, reason for indef ban are not givenbut the deprod was not done with any rationale, so it seems like serious spamming account anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• While I don't support removing the prod, the prod hadn't made a decision as to whether the topic was or was not notable, and the scope of the prod's notability search was limited to the article:    Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The indeffed user requested the indef at ANI in the heat of the moment, so seeking sympathy based on the alleged motives of the editor seems uncivil to me.  The detail of the block are in the block log, [1].   Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and after one year incubate on request  Wikipedia has no need to hurry to include this, but less than two years after becoming the "first fully regulated bitcoin exchange", the topic is already appearing in Google Books.  The topic already passes WP:GNG, so the question is not if we are going to cover this topic, but when.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without prejudice to revisiting in a year. The article isn't hideously promotional at the moment. There's book and magazine coverage, as well as a number of articles on coindesk.com (presuming bylined articles there can be considered sufficiently reliable) and other bitcoin focussed sites. There's also passing book coverage here and here. Paxos (financial technology company), is related to this AFD. The ItBit exchange is now a division of the parent Paxos company. At most it should be a merge/redirect at the moment (it has low but nontrivial pageviews), but that's questionable until things settle down. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2017 (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.