Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin.com

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 keep. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 19:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin.com

[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)

fails WP:CORPDEPTH Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legitimate, notable company, as several secondary and tertiary sources demonstrate (thereby passing WP:PSTS), and contra the accusation of WP:CORPS, at least a few of these sources are more than mere mentions (e.g., the Business Insider article about the former CTO and the Bloomburg interview with the mining exec). Most of the improvement tags on the article are old and have since been rectified, meaning the page is actively managed. (For example, the content that read "like an advertisement" has since been fixed.) That said, it is still just a stub, but that means WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM rather than send to AfD. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. had me fooled for a second. This is different than the BITCOIN itself. Someone random grabbed the domain. However, I was able to find 2 additional WSJ articles and added them. it's definitely notable. Lesliechin1 (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is a notable company with many sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2021 (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.