Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LocalBitcoins (3rd 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 keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, all the sources from affiliated companies owned by the same investors (eg. Coindesk, Cryptocoinnews, bitcoin.com) are primary/related sources, although there is some coverage elsewhere, it is insufficient to meet Notability standards. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade; &sect; ( Message ) -  14:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that there was an extensive previous AfD, your nomination appears to add nothing to the previous discussion, not even the additional sources available since the last AfD. WP:BEFORE D1 on Google News shows as the first hit right now "Bitcoin trading platform Localbitcoins has posted new all-time highs as China's looming trading ban leads traders to seek alternatives. CoinTelegraph‎ 11 Sep 2017".  To apply your "they are not practicing journalistic independence" theory to the sources currently on Google News; you've got to explain away CoinTelegraph, CryptoCoinsNews, CalvinAyre.com, CoinReport, Equities.com, Motherboard, Live Bitcoin News, The Merkle, iNVEZZ, and BTC-Echo; and that is only sources on page 1 and all dates are later than May 2017.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  14:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  14:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  14:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

&Alpha; Guy into Books &trade; &sect; ( Message ) -  17:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Out of your sources only motherboard is independent. What is your point?
 * My points are (1) that your post has not shown evidence of a problem with journalistic independence, which is a matter of journalistic ethics, (2) your objections have already been dealt with at a previous AfD, even while WP:BEFORE B3 states, "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.", and (3) that as per WP:BEFORE D1, wp:notability has increased since the last AFD. Unscintillating (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * to quote a common argument: all your sources are in-bubble WP:FRINGE or related sources, show at least three independent sources with significant depth for WP:CORPDEPTH. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  21:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are not "my" sources. Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2017 (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.) ... Even though people are supposed to treat money traded for Bitcoin as taxable income, as long as people keep their exchanges small enough, it's easy to fly under the radar. It makes it an incredibly appealing option for incremental money laundering, and that's why LocalBitcoins was a cash-spewing tumbler for Silk Road profits. And it's why the Secret Service went undercover on the exchange to bust people for laundering money on it. ...  Plus, LocalBitcoins is not exempt at all from the same volatility and insecurity that plagues the Bitcoin scene in general. At the end of January, LocalBicoins's LiveChat feature got hacked and some people lost money. If you're really into playing around with Bitcoin speculation and you want to escape a paper trail while profiting off small-scale exchanges, it's pretty effective... as long as you're cool with the inherent unknowability of strangers' intentions."  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." <li> The book notes: "One of the safest places to buy bitcoin from a person is https://localbitcoins.com. Sellers store bitcoins in their account wallet, so they are under the control of localbitcoins.com. The amount of coins one wants to buy will affect the price. Some sellers price coins very high, others very low. They are always above market rate because it is a convenient method of buying the coins. Once the seller and buyer make a deal and agree on a price, the seller will provide bank details to transfer the funds. The seller will check the bank, and once the funds arrive in the seller's bank account, the seller will confirm the receipt. This ends the procedure and localbitcoins will transfer the coins you purchased to your account for you to then transfer to your wallet. There is a very small fee charged when bitcoin is transferred from wallet to wallet: (0.001 btc = $0.34 or £0.22 per transaction). If you transferred 1 btc from your local bitcoins account to your personal wallet, you would receive 0.999 btc."</li> <li> The article notes: "The problem is we're a bit backward here in New Zealand and buying Bitcoin is difficult and expensive. Localbitcoins.com is probably the best known exchange where Kiwis buy Bitcoin. A staggering $300,000 of Bitcoin exchange is taking place on Localbitcoins.com here each week. ... Traders selling through Localbitcoins.com take quite a high margin and myBitcoinsaver charges 2.5 per cent commission plus a 'delivery fee', which partially defeats the purpose of Bitcoin exchange being cheap."</li> </ol>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) 00:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/LocalBitcoins participants:, , , , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/LocalBitcoins (2nd nomination) participants:, , , , and . Cunard (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Thanks Cunard for pinging me. These companies are receiving massive worldwide focus at the moment, for super risky, high return investing, ICO's and weird upcoming tech like smart contracts in Ethereum and other heavy duty stuff in newer new money, and all brand new tech. The article has some coverage in sources, and there is more source than you can shake a stick at now and its a decent article. A new field. WP needs articles like this. Also it is a big big outfit scope_creep (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard's sources 5 and 6. 5 is substantial coverage in a book published by an academic publisher. 6 is substantial coverage that does in fact demonstrate intellectual independence: it isn't a press release based source in my judgement, and most AfD regulars will know I'm not easy to please on this front., I would seriously ask you in the future to consider just presenting links with a brief analysis of the source and letting people read the coverage in context. If I went based on what you provided alone, I would be voting delete, but reading in context allows editors to judge the sourcing as a whole rather than just snippets. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, from the 2nd AfD, that I'll raise here and pushes it to a much stronger keep: it gets a pragraph in the New York Times. Ignore all the other things, NYT coverage is normally by itself tends to demonstrate notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources. It would good if new references could be added to article. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG. Among the several independent sources that give significant coverage to the subject are The New York Times, Business Insider, Wired and Gizmodo, so the nominator's claim that "it is insufficient to meet Notability standards" is not true. Cunard's comment above notes that there is additional coverage from reputable academic publishers such as Wiley as well. --Joshua Issac (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am still not impressed, mentions in passing, press releases, no wider significance. A paragraph or two in an academic article on how-to don't change my mind. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cunard's articles among others. Source 2 alone would be enough for me – seems like an article solely about LocalBitcoins traders in a notable online magazine. Various supporting mentions in other sources as well, easily enough to convince on notability. --hydrox (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the sources in the article or listed above do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article is largely a collection of trivia, as in:
 * In September 2016, access from Russia to LocalBitcoins was blocked by Roskomnadzor, the executive agency for telecommunications in Russia, after the finance ministry proposed criminalising the use of bitcoin.[14][15] LocalBitcoins posted instructions for users on how to bypass the access restrictions!
 * Nothing encyclopedically relevant here. A paragraph in NYT does not encyclopedic notability make. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but several paragraphs in multiple reliable sources does. NYT is only one of 16 sources currently in the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per user:hydrox. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 22:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Related Bitcoin AfDs: Articles for deletion/ItBit (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Magazine. Cunard (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep - sourcing and article aren't great, but LocalBitcoins is important and significant in the bitcoin world - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is reality, not the bitcoin world, you are welcome to port it to wikia. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  20:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * your nomination (the 3rd AfD in this case) is a timewaster. You are obligated under WP:BEFORE, specificaly D.1 titled "Search for additional sources," to search to see the level of coverage for this article BEFORE nomination. If you did that you would have noticed the subject of this article has widespread coverage in google books and google news. You might as well take a look at it now https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=localbitcoins rather than suggesting David edit on some other site, he is a qualified editor (and admin), so why should he not edit here on wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Him being an admin in no way influences my opinion, which is that the entire 'bitcoin world' is nothing but a gigantic hype-storm with the majority of the companies owned by a few investors. linking to a google search without any new sources is not helpful. and really saying something is important and significant in its sphere is not helpful either, especially without reliable proof, all there is are some mentions based on other crap peddled by people reliably called a ponzi scheme. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  21:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comment in which you said "my opinion, which is that the entire 'bitcoin world' is nothing but a gigantic hype-storm with the majority of the companies owned by a few investors" represents your opinion. You are prohibited from editing this opinion into wikipedia articles, as it is contrary to WP:NPOV goals. Please read WP:TENDENTIOUS Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  21:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominating articles you dont becuase they are a ponzi scheme (as you claim) like is the same. WP:NOTSOAPBOX applies here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This still isn't an article, other than CIVIL and related behavior guidelines, I dont think you will find many policies apply to discussion pages. It is a ponzi scheme btw.  &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  22:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have done some research on defending your soapboxing on AfD pages. Good source for the ponzi content btw, I will add it over on the Bitcoin page now, we had been looking for more content for this section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep widespread coverage in google books, news, etc. A full page of hits in Google books first page of results, do we even need to go to page two to look further. Far beyond WP:GNG, this nomination is frivolous. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:04, 23 September 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.