Draft talk:Bitget

Notability Tag

I have no issue with this being accepted out of AFC. THe barrier is much lower However despite the known author and RS, I don't think there's WP:CORP level sourcing here. There's routine churnalism and funding, but the depth appears lacking. Is there any better available? Star Mississippi 12:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I think FT meets the bar but the others, I agree. S0091 (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep doing some research, found some more stuff in WP:GREL stuff.

I know Forbes contributor won't work, but here is some (somewhat) questionable Forbes content:

1. Forbes India (Kuru said that Forbes India shouldn't be used)

2. Forbes Italy (staff contributor?)

I also came across Forbes Columbia, it appears fine as it's written by the staff team so I'll add it in myself, but the two above are curious. TLA^tlak 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake I didn't scroll all the way down, the Forbes Columbia is a bit churnalism and may also be based on a press release in investing.com, though I can't find the original press release. I'll cite it anyway as it's not not reliable, but not the best yeah. TLA^tlak 01:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla that's a press release and you want to avoid articles that do not have a named author. It also indicates it's attributed to Investing.com. S0091 (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's churnalism, not a press release, as it's bylined by Forbes Staff. Anyway, the attribution to Investing.com makes it not the best. I think it would fine for verifying Bitget's connection to Messi, though, and that's all it is used for at the moment. TLA^tlak 05:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not useful for establishing notability which is the concern. S0091 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There are 3 AfDs with delete results. This shouldn't be accepted like this imo. Tehonk (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The concern at the past AfDs was the excessive use of non reliable blogs and promotional material. I thought I would take a stab and source solely from GREL sources, went through two administrators to ensure that it's fine to get this published. In my opinion, steering away from crypto-esque blogs, Bitget meets WP:NCORP. TLA^tlak 03:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There definitely isn't the depth needed for N:CORP yet @I'm tla. I think a lot of crypto articles have trouble meeting that bar due to the press they acquire. @Tehonk the AfC barrier is very low. AfD 3 was immolation by sock and I did say an established editor was welcome to try, which we have here. I expect this will eventually end up back at AfD but willing to let TLA continue to try and find sourcing as there's nothing here that merit deletion immediately. Star Mississippi 03:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep digging, what does everyone think about this Guardian article? I think the latter half is relatively in-depth. TLA^tlak 03:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I am at "tend to exclude" for the Guardian article on routineness grounds. I see two paragraphs with two sentences each about the company itself (from "Founded" to "November"), nothing qualitatively different from the cluster analysed in AfD 1. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian is churnalism and doesn't offer much more than the FT article. In one of those AfDs someone said there were a lot of hits on ProQuest so I checked because I don't think TLA has access. There are around 1,700 hits but a ton of those are press releases (PRNewire and the like). Once I excluded those, blogs, ads, etc. I got around 300. Of those, a good chunk were still press releases, a lot were brief mentions or statements made by them, some were duplicates (ex. the FT article shows up 4 times) and the rest were routine coverage. I also have access to WSJ so checked there but only got one hit which was a brief mention. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the search, I think there is consensus that the Financial Times article is strong sourcing. What about the numerous articles in South China Morning Post (a paper of record)? I don't think this and this really count as WP:ROUTINE. TLA^tlak 20:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They are routine per WP:ORGCRIT. SCHMP is a regurgitation of an press release/announcement by Bitget ("Cryptocurrency exchange Bitget said....) and funding/capital announcements are considered trivial coverage per WP:ORGTRIV. So this may have one qualifying source for notability (I wouldn't say there is consensus) but multiple are required and given this has already been to AFD three times in less than a year, it needs WP:THREE. Above that, I think they need to be indisputable sources (i.e. no one in their right mind would question notability).

What I strongly suggest is moving this back to draft, TLA. No only does each AfD make it even more difficult to get an article through, more importantly AfD's take up a lot of the community's time. The other advice I have is to not go after articles G5/G11 deleted which what I think @Kuru was trying to get at in his initial response to you here. There are PLENTY of drafts that are "no fault" G13 deleted that may meet notability. Also check out Category:Promising draft articles. S0091 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla what is your rush to have the tag removed? You can just go about your course of editing and ignore it. If someone down the road feels there's enough sourcing to remove it, they may do so. Or they might not, and that's OK.

I do think @S0091 has a point about less contentious drafts. Companies are hard to edit about until you fully know the difference between sources that verify it exists and ones that confer notability. I'd also argue we don't really need any more articles about companies, whereas other topics are less well represented. Star Mississippi 22:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I had no intention of "having the tag removed", @S0091, I think it just reaches the bar, but as there seems to be disagreement I have no issue moving it to the draft space, incubate it there and wait if maybe some more strong sources comes up.

@S0091 I don't think it's good to bluntly say not go after articles G5/G11 deleted. I'm sure we know that in, let's say, 90% of the cases the subjects aren't notable and the sourcing is just puffy blogs etc. But for the remaining 10%, I think it's important we give any prima facie subject a try, get it past AfC review for discussion, which was my intention here. Same with my recent work with notable (?) Gen Z slang, which has attracted some attention. Thanks all TLA^tlak 22:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)