Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitpanda


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Bitpanda

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable organization that fails to meet WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of them. Needless to say there isn’t any WP:ORGDEPTH. A google search predominantly links me to user generated sources which of course we do not consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as nommed. Search finds plenty of hits, but mostly routine mentions, press release regurgitations, etc.; nothing that obviously meets notability requirements. (And it's not like the article makes any great effort of claiming importance, either, and for that reason this could have even been speedied.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.