Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitGold (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BitGold

[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)

I don't see how this passes our new and improved notability requirements for companies. Coverage appears to be entirely routine; a source such as The Guardian might be thought reliable, but turns out to be just a blog post. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Classic startup with refs that fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. No real coverage, usual acquisitions, stock, buyout churnalism. Press releases were previously removed in 2015 and then new press releases added back. Highly promotional. Spam target, wasting editors time constant cleanup/fill with the crap, cycle. scope_creep^Talk 10:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was almost swayed by that Guardian piece! Thanks for noting that it was merely a blog. Fails WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The arguments I made in the last AfD still hold. I also strongly object to re-listing an article for deletion after so short a time period - there was no consensus then, so there is no particular reason why there should be a consensus now. The real purpose in listing this article is to have a discussion without all those inconvenient "keep" voices. In terms of "wasting editor time", the real waste of time is in replying to these constant AfDs. Personally, I have largely stopped editing Wikipedia, because I am so discouraged by the power of the deletionists over AFDs - I never know when one of my articles will be nominated for deletion, and my hard work deleted by the whim of some deletionist editor who thinks that almost every company article is spam. I would ask those participating in this discussion how many company articles you have written. If the answer is none, are you really qualified to judge those articles written by others? -Mparrault (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mparrault: How are you? Don't lose hope. Six months is a fair bit of time for a relisting gap. As regards the article, you seem to write in a particularity promotional manner that reflects the language of business, specifically marketing and branding as opposed to the language of Wikipedia, which is neutral, factual, verifiable and free of promotion. scope_creep^Talk 13:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Almost nine months has passed since the last AfD. That's more than a reasonable wait before renominating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: Under normal circumstances I might have closed this as a delete. But after reading the last AfD I think this may benefit from some more discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH under either name. Sources are not independent, WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Guardian piece is blog, and Forbes piece mentioned in previous AfD is a casual mention, providing no in-depth coverage of the topic. The balance of the article is based on press released, so GNG and NCORP are not met, and I can't think of any other criteria by which this topic achieves notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 20 March 2019 (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.