Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitget (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 speedy delete‎. Article creator/nominator is a confirmed sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masckarpone). If an established editor wishes to write about Bitget, they're welcome to do so. Star Mississippi 17:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bitget

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi fellows. I think we need 3rd AfD cause I'm not responsible for former AfDs and draft reviewers hasn't see any significant changes since past. I found in web-archive how it was looks like before me here: https://web.archive.org/web/20231028000951/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitget We need consensus, cause to me - CSD G4 violation might harm my interes to improve Wikipedia, cause my next similar to bitget wishes is KuCoin, WhiteBIT, Qmall, MEXC etc which was deleted before me and I has no clue how it was looks like in past. TBH, I spent my weekend to write the article, then got rejected without any suggestions or comments. So you're welcome to leave any comment throught this AfD. Enjoy--Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Companies, Economics, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Vinzaretti (talk • contribs) [reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 08:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This is so unnecessary. I moved this article to Draft space stating that because it a previous version had been deleted in an AFD, you should submit it to
WP:AFC for review. But after it was declined twice, you decided move it back to main space and launch a 3rd AFD! I never said it was a CSD G4 violation, I just said that it should be reviewed by an AFC reviewer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Before you move article to the draftspace, article was nominated for speedy deletion because of CSD G4, then in draft article was declined because of CSG G4. Looks like Draft reviewers mocking of me, because to me I not violated that. So I am sorry if I bother. I just want to learn how to do. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what an odd one... did I get this right, the author has moved their rejected draft past AfC into the main space, and then straight away started this discussion in the hope of reaching a 'keep' verdict to overrule the rejection, not to mention the earlier AfDs? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. I am interesting to get attention, cause I not accept silence rejection of AfC. As I see I got rejection from you because of WP COPYVIO. I fixed that and mentioned you to take a look as a reviewer, then got silence. No one adviced me how to improve, just declined. Unfair to me. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"not to mention the earlier AfDs" what it means and how it even connected with my article? Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if it got AfD I should not continue to work on bitget, kucoin, mexc, qmall, whitebit which probably meet
CSD G4? Is it my fault that I'm interested in cryptocurrency exchanges? Yes, they were all deleted (I checked), but I'm not responsible for every one lol. It kills my interes. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you take a look on Bybit please? Pretty one, right? I'm going to start AfD on Bybit too. Too strict to me, too kind to Bybit. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify? I guess. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove or why you think the problem is CSD G4. The reason your draft wasn't approved is because there's only routine coverage (mostly of a lawsuit by a more notable company) or non RS crypto sites. It also could use some copyediting but that's a secondary concern. I get that you're trying to learn Wikipedia but that'll be easier if you stop and hear out other editors. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you even want review the article correctly, cause looks like you just defend your submission decision while you even ignoring changes. I started AfD to let others be involved, enjoy. Not take it personally pls. Then go draftify Bybit, why not bro? Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

other stuff exists doesn't mean that Bitget has to have a page. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not even about bybit or bitget. You just too strict, while to bybit too kind. Initiate AfD then for Bybit please, thx. Now I'm not at my PC, so cannot do it right now. And some frustrates me when everyone blames, no one helps to improve or explain. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Offtop:

Lewcm started AfD here. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Draftify OP, it would probably be better to work on this as a draft, as they do not qualify for
other stuff exists argument is not a good one. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete don't really see the point of draftifying this, given that was done once already, the draft was then rejected at AfC, and moved into the main space by the author. Moving it back to drafts now would achieve... what, exactly? If someone wants to TNT this, find new and better sources, and rewrite the whole thing from scratch, by all means have at it, but that doesn't need this to be moved to the draft space, surely? (And all this before we even consider that the 1st and 2nd AfD resulted in delete, both in the last six months.) --
Comment why you blame here CSD G4, because of "1st and 2nd AfD resulted in delete, both in the last six months". Where evidence that this version isn't better than previous? So if it deleted once, so I should'nt continue to develop KuCoin article for example? Nice logic.Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the draft was then rejected at AfC, and moved into the main space by the author. Moving it back to drafts now would achieve... what, exactly?". Buddy, since moving I extended the article by 12 references (third party significant coverage reliable sources) on 4 different topics. Are you lazy even to check it before blame me for nonsense my contribution? So at minimum it worth another one AfC in the Draft. What a hater... Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would do well to stop
WP:BLUDGEONING
the discussion and start coming up with some policy-based arguments instead.

The reason why the earlier AfDs are relevant is that this subject has been discussed twice quite recently, and on both occasions found non-notable. Therefore the onus is on you to come up with something that clearly demonstrates notability. You couldn't demonstrate that at AfC, and to instead bring this 3rd AfD is bordering on
WP:TENDENTIOUS. The AfD department is busy enough as it is, and we shouldn't be litigating the same subject over and over unless there's reasonable cause. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It has reasons, cause if you take a look properly you will notice that article has changed. Or I do changes for myself lol? So I repeat question, If my further articles on KuCoin, WhiteBIT, Qmall, MEXC, any other exchanges has previous AfD, so I should'nt spend my time on develop articles? Looks like I shoud'nt cause you again refer me to 1st and 2nd AfD which has no connection to my article if you take a look on the content. Sounds like I in wrong place. Sorry for
WP:BLUDGEONING, but you just refer us to AfD (which is nonsense now) and evade do reviewer's work proreply. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete and enhance with cobalt salt. Acknowledging our social policies, there still comes a time where
patience wears thin. Let us not have a 4th nom for 5 and a half years. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Citations 5, 16 and 30 are green, so considered reliable, but I'd only consider source 5 as extensive, non-PR text. Rest is about routine funding. All I can find are PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just look at the two earlier AfD nominations. There are also a few reliable sources, but the rest are all promotional. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 16:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.