Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ItBit (2nd nomination)

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. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Some people felt that the sources presented were rehashed press releases; there's no consensus on that particular, but they clearly failed to convince the other participants that they met our requirements. Salting was suggested, but I don't see any support for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ItBit

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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, Note: there are literally thousands of companies we do not have articles on which have 'trust charters' and have gained over $5m in venture funding. these do not improve its notability. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember having ever been prompted to justify my decision there before, so I'm not sure where this "remains unexplained" business comes from. That said, it was a pretty clear-cut "no consensus" call: reasonable arguments were advanced (including by yourself, confusingly enough) to show that the topic was notable, but the "delete" votes identified some legitimate issues as well. After three full weeks in which the final had seen no discussion whatsoever, it was abundantly evident that no consensus would emerge after a third relisting. Perhaps I should have specified WP:NPASR in the closing statement, but I've always felt that goes without saying in "no consensus" decisions for low-participation AfDs. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I put in bold "Delete", that should have been a strong indication that I thought the article should be deleted, and I Wikilinked WP:SUSTAINED.  I also stated that I did not support removal of the prod.  BTW, thank you for your reply.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt for one year  Fails WP:SUSTAINED.  WP:BEFORE D1 for Google news shows that ItBit announced a rebranding on 24 September 2017.  The topic meets WP:GNG, as shown by WP:BEFORE and Cunard's sources.  But skimming Cunard's sources shows a pattern of talking about things that the company plans or hopes to do.  Nor is it our role to understand or support the company in its rebranding. 
    As the keep !vote said at the previous AfD, there is a parent company here, Paxos (company).  This company has been in existence since December 2016, so is a startup.  My Google search for Paxos showed nothing in Google books. 
    If deleted and salted, a year from now, I expect that this article will be restored with its edit history as a redirect to Paxos.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A solution might be to redirect Paxos (company) to Euroclear and (briefly) cover the JV in context; and redirect ItBit to Digital currency exchange with capsule summaries added for exchanges with sufficient RS (including defunct ones such as Mt. Gox)... but that would probably open cans of worms given the edit history. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sourcing offered above does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. It's mostly about the company's hopes, plans and aspirations, as in:
  • ItBit is implementing ..., or
  • "ItBit’s NY Virtual Currency License Could Provide Road Map", etc.
WP:TOOSOON also applies -- the company has not achieved anything that would make it Wiki-notable just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ItBit passes WP:SUSTAINED. Regarding Unscintillating's "This company has been in existence since December 2016, so is a startup", it was founded in 2013, not 2016. There are sources about the company in 2013, 2015, and 2016, which means it passes WP:SUSTAINED in that there are not just "brief bursts of news coverage".

    Regarding Unscintillating's "Cunard's sources shows a pattern of talking about things that the company plans or hopes to do", itBit became the first bitcoin company to be regulated as a bank in the United States after it received a license from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS).

    The company received an extensive profile in the Modern Trader magazine here. It received significant coverage in the book International Financial Management. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the textbook presents ItBit's way of dealing in Bitcoin not only as a historical first, but as a turning point in the finance world's view of Bitcoin.
The Cade Metz article in Wired also is interesting in that it is explicitly sourced to a tweet—a primary source, making the article a secondary source for the information about ItBit's regulatory status.
Ironically, the assertion that these articles are derived from PR is itself presented without any evidence. They sound like PR? No doubt. Any brief news report that happens to be favorable to a company is likely to sound like PR.
—Syrenka V (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGIND makes it clear that recycled PR sourcing does not count towards establishing notability, and brief news reports on corporations almost always fail WP:ORG, either on CORPDEPTH or ORGIND. The sourcing here also fails these guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence has been presented to show that even one of these sources, let alone all or most of them, are actually "recycled PR" or were otherwise authored by ItBit. Some do quote company personnel, but all include significant material not derived from what they quote from ItBit.
I have yet to see WP:CORPDEPTH used as an argument for deletion, here or elsewhere, in a way that is true to what it actually says. This guideline makes it clear that the detail it requires can be pieced together from multiple sources, as long as they are not "trivial or incidental" mentions. It defines such a mention by giving a list of examples, none of which resembles any of the sources here. All of the provided examples have one of two characteristics. Either (1) they are both very brief and irrelevant to the principal point of the source in which they occur, or (2) they are what is elsewhere called "indiscriminate publicity", such as routine restaurant reviews—every restaurant gets reviewed by local news—or mergers and acquisitions of subsidiaries.
The nomination statement against ItBit essentially makes the argument that the material in the current Wikipedia page is routine/indiscriminate, true of "literally thousands of companies". And indeed that is true of having $5 million in venture funding. But it is not true of, for example, being the first fully regulated Bitcoin exchange in history. The sources Cunard quotes should have ended any doubt of notability.
—Syrenka V (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update on sourcing: I've now found a few sources not included in Cunard's list:
    • A couple of press releases, not from itBit but from the New York State Department of Financial Services, documenting itBit's status as the first virtual currency company chartered by the state. The second one is about a different company that got a later charter, but is worth knowing about because it gives a more complete timeline. These press releases are of course primary sources, but they are independent of itBit—and they demonstrate that primary sources for secondary news stories exist that are independent of itBit's PR.
    • A New York Business Journal article reporting on itBit's licensing, sourced not to company sources, but to a statement by Benjamin Lawsky, New York's state superintendent of financial services.
    • A law journal article likewise commenting on itBit as the holder of the first state trust company license (for a cryptocurrency exchange firm).
—Syrenka V (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cunard makes a good case by arguing that there are enough sources present to use for this article. However, nine months after the previous AfD, no progress in sourcing is made. To go even further: a week after the start of the second AfD, we still basically have the same poor article as we had in January this year (although one reference was added). So, unless something will change drastically, a deletion of this article is the best option. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ItBit_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1220477502"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ItBit (2nd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.