BitFlyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Bloomberg and other kind of good sources have only passing mentions of the subject. The available coverage is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Finmagnets and other sources are press releases mainly. 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japan crypto exchange bitFlyer to be sold to Asian investment fund from Nikkei. IgelRM (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Back in 2020-2021 I edited this page because an editor with a COI requested it, and I think that an uninvolved editor should check out such edits rather than forcing them COI editor to either break our rules or not contribute. In this case, the suggested changes were an improvement, so I made the change. Better does not mean good, and much more needs to be done to make this a good article. What I am not seeing is any evidence of notability; just press releases and other attempts to promote the business. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would repeat my frequent request that nominators of Japanese-language articles show evidence of a WP:BEFORE search that includes sources in Japanese and competence to evaluate them, but in this case, it seems no WP:BEFORE or review of the Japanese Wikipedia article was done at all? In addition to the blurb in Nikkei Asia provided by User:IgelRM above, there is an article in CNBC, one about issuing Japan's first crypto credit card, coverage from The Nikkei [1] [2] [3], and lots of coverage in tech and crypto media. All of this is linked from the Japanese Wikipedia article and show clear evidence that BitFlyer is notable. DCsansei (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Again concur with @DCsansei that there are plenty of Japanese sources, and that it would be great if nominations of Japanese articles showed evidence of WP:BEFORE using a simple Japanese google search. Even then though, I’m confused how the sources already given in this article by the WSJ etc could be considered passing mentions when they directly refer to the company and its activities. I find this nomination unusually confusing.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a comment: Bloomberg is no longer as reliable as it used to be. Bearian (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s only true of straight company profiles as opposed to reported pieces though no? Or am I reading the perennial sources list wrong? this article also has multiple sources from Business Insider, WSJ, Financial Times too though. Even 2-3 of those would satisfy notability, let alone 7-8 plus all Japanese sources. Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]