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. The "keep" opinions do not reflect any critical assessment of the sources, unlike HighKing's analysis, which is persuasive. Sandstein 07:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitit (French company) (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)

Non notable organization that does not satisfy WP:CORP. A before search shows that sources that discuss the organization are mostly paid publications & generally are unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if this is wrong place to post the message but I think there is some misunderstanding because the sources are not paid publication. For instance this [1] VentureBeat article was written by their European Correspondent. This Forbes [2] article is written by their own journalist. The Coin Telegraph [3] article was written by their literary editor etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freaintanl (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not surprising that coverage is in the trade press, but I's like evidence that these sources are unreliable. Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

• Keep the article because the nomination is incorrect. The sources are not unreliable.Freaintanl (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But why? Which sources are unreliable and paid? I asked the same question to the nominator. Freaintanl (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder, could you please place your vote? Freaintanl (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are 8 different sources. No evidence that they are not reputable. Rathfelder (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is not a question on the number of sources or whether the sources are "reputable". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources I've seen meet the criteria. For example, this VentureBeat article mentioned above is entirely based on a company announcement and subsequent interview and relies entirely on information/quotations from the company. There is no independent opinion/analysis attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company and this reference therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This CoinTelegraph reference is a very similar article and fails for the exact same reasons, this second reference is also entirely based on a company announcement and subsequent interview, fails for the same reasons as above and this third reference is marked as a Press Release and also fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, the Forbes references. The first one is entirely based on an interview (with an "entrepreneur") and contains no Independent Content, this fails WP:ORGIND. The second article is a mention-in-passing containing a quotation from the founder, also fails WP:ORGIND. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If I understood correctly, you mean all these reputable publishers and their staffs are not independent of the subject? If you read the references, Forbes for instance is not an interview. The owner's name has been mentioned to verify the claim and this is why it stated like "...confirms Nicolas Katan". This is indeed an fact-checking and independent opinions. If you are kind enough to suggest me what kind of references you want to see then maybe I can find it as lots of references are also available in French language.Freaintanl (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from these, I also checked Wikipedia's articles on other Bitcoin exchanges here-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bitcoin_exchanges and I found that my sourcing was way better than many other articles in that list.Freaintanl (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freaintanl, nobody has questioned whether the publishers are "reputable" or their staff is "independent" but this is a common misinterpretation of the criteria for establishing notability. Check out WP:ORGIND which explains how to interpret "Independent" source which includes a requirement for "Independent Content". As per WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I think you understand what is required based on your comment in relation to "...confirms Nicolas Katan" but in my opinion this does not meet the requirements for Independent Content since the "fact checking" provided by the journalist was to simply ask a company representative and this method does not meet the requirements for the fact-checking to be "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company". Examples (and signs) of good sources - and this isn't an exhaustive list - are reports by analysts who might be covering the sector and include a description of this company, articles which don't rely on the company/executives for all the relevant information, articles where perhaps a reviewer gives an independent review of a product and includes a good background description of the company which isn't simply a copy-pasta or bland generic description, a book that includes a description of the company which, again, isn't simply regurgitating company-produced material, etc. As to the other Bitcoin exchanges - if you believe they don't meet the criteria for inclusion and you cannot find sources that meet the criteria, there are processes such as PRODding the article or you can nominate for deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detail explanation and I checked that you mentioned the second point of WP:ORGIND i.e. "Independence of the content" and the references I used satisfy the 1st point i.e. "Independence of the author" because these are regular staff reporters not guest posts or opinions. Could you please check the post by HackerNoon.com [4] is of any use for independent coverage? Freaintanl (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freaintan1, first off and is my opinion, HackerNoon.com fails WP:RS as a reliable source. The website appears to encourage anybody to "publish" and it is unclear if any editorial oversight exists. and also allows companies to publish as author posts. Essentially it appears to be a website of user generated content. Leaving that aside, the coverage is not significant and WP:CORPDEPTH defines inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists as Trivial Coverage. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assessing the link. Please check this news[5] on complying with the Financial Action Task Force's guidelines where it mentions Bitit as one of the important exchanges to comply with the rules.Freaintanl (talk) 07:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freaintanl, I don't know how many other ways to say what is required. We need significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and containing independent content. The last link is a mention-in-passing containing nothing *about the company*. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete muchh per Highking's sound analysis: what appears superficially to be indepth sourcing on closer look is revealed to be more in the way of MILL. ——Serial ^# 16:31, 30 June 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.