Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LocalBitcoins (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 no consensus. No consensus for a specific outcome has occurred in this discussion. North America1000 06:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

LocalBitcoins
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY. Last AfD was a mess because it was a mass nom, and pretty much ended in no consensus (see closing note). Looking at this, all I see are press releases, industry trade journal coverage of doubious reliability (most of it seems like rehashed and paid-for PR rather then real journalism). I will also point out to a related comment on a related AfD which is quite relevant here. Then, yes, there is the BI piece, but a single piece which is not so much an in-depth overview of the company as a news story about it being a target of some hacking is not sufficient, IMHO, to make it notable. In the end, I think this is just WP:CORPSPAM that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC) (

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: LocalBitcoins was significant subject of an article in a well-established news organization (business insider). It's also been covered as primary subject matter in less-established "trade rags". Here it's the primary subject of an article in a non-bitcoin industry publication. Here's substantial coverage in Ars Technica. It also gets peripheral mention quite regularly in articles from well-established organizations such as The Guardian Sputnik News and Bloomberg. Those are just from the last few weeks. There's an older mention of the company in the gold standard NY Times Chris Arnesen 20:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The article notes: "LocalBitcoins, a decentralized Bitcoin exchange with more than 100,000 users, confirmed reports of a security breach after multiple users complained their digital cash had vanished. ... Unlike most Bitcoin exchanges, which facilitate fully online transactions, LocalBitcoins matches buyers and sellers by geographical location for face-to-face exchanges of cash for Bitcoins. The company's 110,000 active traders make it the largest decentralized market in the world, according to ArcticStartup."  The article notes: "I'd arranged this meeting through LocalBitcoins.com, a Bitcoin marketplace that's not unlike a cryptocurrency Craigslist. People who want to sell Bitcoin post advertisements, and buyers message them to arrange a transfer. The Helsinki-based marketplace started in 2012, but there are people using it to buy and sell all over the world. (Though not in Germany, where it's been blocked for regulatory reasons.)"  The article notes: "If you are not familiar with LocalBitcoins, it is a service where people from different countries can exchange their local currency to bitcoin. The site allows users to post the exchange rate and payment methods they want for buying or selling bitcoin. Anyone can reply and agree to meet to buy or sell bitcoin with cash, or trade directly with online banking. Funds are placed in LocalBitcoins’ web wallet from where the buyer can pay for purchases directly. It should be noted the Russia isn't the only jurisdiction in which LocalBitcoins have run into trouble with regulations. For example, in 2015 LocalBitcoins left New York over its BitLicense program and in 2014 it halted service in Germany after being contacted by BaFin (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht), the country’s financial supervisory authority, also apparently on the matter of licensing."  The article notes: "LocalBitcoins.com allows users to trade Bitcoin in person by finding the address of buyers and sellers closest to your physical address. That might seem like no anonymity is involved, but in practice actual addresses are never revealed, many transactions occur online, and if the two parties do meet in person, they usually don't ask each other's names. As of December, the site was seeing up to 3,000 Bitcoins traded a day." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LocalBitcoins to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)</li></ul> The first link is from a website whose column was simply for business reports, they mean nothing exactly as how a local business journal would publish their own localities for businesses and investors.
 * Delete and here's why:
 * LocalBitcoins.com allows users to trade Bitcoin in person by finding the address of buyers and sellers closest to your physical address. That might seem like no anonymity is involved, but in practice actual addresses are never revealed, many transactions occur online, and if the two parties do meet in person, they usually don't ask each other's names. As of December, the site was seeing up to 3,000 Bitcoins traded a day. (Itself is a press release since violates WP:GUIDE as it, not only works as a business guide, but it states the company's own financials)
 * If you are not familiar with LocalBitcoins, it is a service where people from different countries can exchange their local currency to bitcoin. The site allows users to post the exchange rate and payment methods they want for buying or selling bitcoin. Anyone can reply and agree to meet to buy or sell bitcoin with cash, or trade directly with online banking. Funds are placed in LocalBitcoins’ web wallet from where the buyer can pay for purchases directly. (Is yet another business report and it shows since the largest part is what the company itself wants its clients to hear, regardless of if it had troubles in Russia and New York)
 * If the above, (a business report (Business Insider itself notoriously publishes such business quotes), another business report and another slightly similar business report) is all the coverage we have, it shows the company itself hasn't been noticed for anything else but republishing their own financials, that explicitly violates policy WP:NOT. The notabilities for companies itself not only states "Companies may be notable, but it also states that there's no automatic compromises with anything). SwisterTwister   talk  18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Itself is a press release since violates WP:GUIDE as it, not only works as a business guide, but it states the company's own financials – that the article discussed the company's financials and how the company works is good journalistic practice. It does not make it a press release. WP:NOTGUIDE refers to Wikipedia articles, not for non-Wikipedia articles. Business Insider is considered a reliable source per Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 83. An editor wrote: "Yes, Business Insider and the article you cite, qualify as reliable sources. It has editorial overright. It's been cited by other reliable sources such as New York Daily News, The San Francisco Chronicle, Bloomburg, and Reuters which indicates that it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.  It's been cited by as many as 377 articles which indicates that many other editors in the community find it reliable." Cunard (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those quotations are from the sources themselves, not from the article, so there are no WP:GUIDE violations. If we applied Wikipedia content guidelines and policies to the sources themselves, then we would not be able to cite any newspapers because of WP:NOTNEWS, nor any scientific journals because of WP:NOTJOURNAL, nor any textbooks because of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and so on. So it is quite clear that WP:GUIDE is irrelevant in this situation. In fact, the relevant guideline would be Identifying reliable sources, and the sources used in the article do not violate it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I never say there were WP:GUIDE violations, I said there were WP:What Wikipedia is not violations. SwisterTwister   talk  23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote, "Itself is a press release since violates WP:GUIDE as it, not only works as a business guide, but it states the company's own financials" about the Business Insider article. Notwithstanding the fact that the Business Insider article in question is neither a press release, nor states the company's financials, it would not be a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE (which is part of WP:NOT) even if it did. That is because WP:NOTGUIDE is about Wikipedia articles themselves, not about the sources they cite. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete this is one of many companies working with bitcoin which bitcoin is a notable subject but local bitcoins is not notable also i have heard the argument that just because there is a competitor article that their company should also have an article. but wikipedia is not yellow pages or any other place that has a list of business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnymoon96 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that "wikipedia is not yellow pages". But Wikipedia covers companies that pass Notability, which this company does. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete A Generic bitcoin marketplace, of which there is literally hundreds now. So they lost some bitcoins. Show me in one continent that has not happened dozens of times overs the last three years. Absolutely no inherent notability. scope_creep (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not "a generic bitcoin marketplace". From The Daily Dot about LocalBitcoins, "The company's 110,000 active traders make it the largest decentralized market in the world, according to ArcticStartup." Cunard (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From Notability (organizations and companies), "No company or organization is considered inherently notable". So that argument is not specific to LocalBitcoins. Notability of the subject is instead established by reliable sources, rather than by any claim of inherent notability. It has nothing to do with whether there are hundreds or thousands of other bitcoin marketplaces. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/LocalBitcoins participants:, , , , , , , , , , , . Cunard (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see how any of the examples brought up by SwisterTwister count as press releases. Enough coverage in reliable sources for me. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep appears to have enough coverage. The fact there are many bitcoin variants is irrelevant, each should be judged on there own notability. Article isn't high quality, again that in itself is no grounds to delete. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which policy states "articles can be accepted even without high quality"? SwisterTwister   talk  23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No policy states that, but the deletion policy also does not permit low article quality as a reason for deletion (see Deletion policy). In addition, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions says this:
 * "However, note also that the current low quality of an article is also not a reason to delete it."
 * --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether the subject should have an article and quality of article are separate issues. The former can be decided without reference to the current article. If the quality of the article is very poor and it has nothing of value then WP:TNT might apply. In this case it the article is small, but not of no value. It's like a stub, better than nothing; but extending the article would improve Wikipedia. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like good enough coverage to me. The article could stand to be improved, but that's no reason to delete it, otherwise we'd delete all the stub articles. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 15:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which policy states "good enough" is what accepts an article? Because WP:NOt is the essential policy we use for unsuitable subjects. SwisterTwister   talk  23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - As I stated in the previous AfD, which closed as keep ("Delete BTEC-E; No consensus on Itbit or Williams; Keep the rest"), notability is established by coverage in multiple reliable sources. The subject has been covered by Business Insider, New York Times, Wired, and several other sources that Cunard has mentioned above. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this acceptable in WP:NOT policies? The sources themselves including BusinessInsider simply consisted of republished company information, announcements and quotes. Stating "But republishing the company's own financial quotes is good" is not what establishes our policies, and we've never considered adding it to policy at all, because that's only suitable for their own PR websites. WP:NOT itself explicitly states "Wikipedia is not the place for simple company information, business facts and other Yellow pages materials". Sinply because we kept it years ago bears no relevance now because we now know the damages of accepting submissions advertising so saying "It's not quality content, but let:a accept it anyway" damages us as an encyclopedia which can't even handle removing its own advertisements. We are not here in the interests of advertising the company (contrary to what was quoted above) but in the interests of a NoAdvertising Encyclopedia. As it is, we've never established GNG (note it's a suggestive guideline, not mandatory) to be an actual policy because it's too large and heavy of a spectrum and thus is needed to handled by policy case by case. SwisterTwister   talk  23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:NOT are you saying the article violates? The Business Insider article is about a criminal case involving people who used LocalBitcoin, so I do not understand why you think it is just made of republished company information. Are you talking about the CrunchBase article? Even if you are, that just one source (out of the 16 currently cited in the article) is a database with republished information does not constitute a reason to ignore the other sources and the coverage they give to the subject. What you wrote about advertising is irrelevant in this case, since nothing in the article violates WP:NOTAD. That WP:GNG is only a guideline is not a reason to ignore it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (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.