Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraken Bitcoin Exchange


 * 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 no consensus. Nakon 03:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Kraken Bitcoin Exchange

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was recently prodded by User:Liance and deprodded by User:Kvng who thinks there are sources that merit an AfD, so here we are. I do not believe those sources meet WP:NCORP. Yes, the company is mentioned in some news stories, but those are extremely niche: primarily, cypto-currency publications (trade journals). It has been my impression that those trade journals exist to create buzz around this industry and spam bazillion articles about any personnel change, IPO, merger and acquisition in the field. Out of the three sources pointed to by Kvng, one is a press release or a slight rewrite of one, and the other two seem to mention the company only in passing in a list of similar companies, and come from trade journal-like websites of dubious notability. Unless we consider all bit coin exchanges notable, I think we need to require better sources then said spam trade journals. Did this company receive any coverage outside its own niche sources? I don't see that it did. Hence, I say again: spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability established by, , . WP:NCORP doesn't say anything about excluding trade publications. ~Kvng (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize that is a press release? I am sorry but I do not consider sources presented here to be reliable, they look like not-in-depth/paid-for-spam masquerading as coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely soft coverage but it has a byline so it is not a pure press release. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's better than PR. It's copyvio.  czar  05:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as nothing at all actually convincing for the needed notability and improvements, there's nothing else convincing and it seems too soon. SwisterTwister   talk  04:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep while sources at the moment on the wiki page are a little on the thin side for it, less than half a second on Google shows there no shortage of additional ones to add to it as the article grows. Clearly a case for Keep. - Mathmo Talk 06:47, 20 May 2016 (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.