Bybit : The entire features section is only referenced by primary sources, with one section not referenced at all.  I believe some sections also seem like promo.  Lewcm Talk to me!  15:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency , Companies ,  and United Arab Emirates .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Websites .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It seems not like just simple promo.  Why contributors  made Features paragraph based only on primary sources?  #5 sources (WSJ) does not even mention the company.  Not passed WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Vinzaretti ( talk • contribs ) 17:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Confirmed sock and struck.  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masckarpone .  Star Mississippi 17:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bybit is a top 6 of worldwide crypto exchange with a trading volume of almost 4billion dollars in 24h.  [62] It is one of the top exchanges in the world and already translated in 7 languages.  People that want to learn about the top exchanges might find this wiki article very useful.  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 14:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per explanation from HighKing ++ .  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 11:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified.  If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.  Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc.  HighKing ++ 14:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the only news coverage I could find is company-issued press releases.  No in-depth reliable secondary coverage, as far as I can tell.  Owen× ☎ 23:58, 14 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete