Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gods Unchained


 * 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Gods Unchained

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a crypto article and such should conform to WP:GS/Crypto. There are not enough mainstream sources - of the 2 references, 1 appears to be a paid PR release. Molochmeditates (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, while the article is in a pretty poor state right now, there is enough sourcing out there for this to pass GNG. In addition to the VentureBeat source already in the article, I also found coverage in the Australian Financial Review and in MIT Technology Review . Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Are there any more WP:RS's? If not, I'm not sure this passes GNG. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, there's also coverage in The Sydney Morning Herald here and Yahoo! Finance here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yahoo Finance is actually a republished article from Decrypt.co. Generally the cryptocurrency news sites aren't useful for notability per Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Coin (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - the coverage appears to be entirely the launch PR push, nothing that meets WP:NCORP standards. This is WP:TOOSOON at best - David Gerard (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, that's not true though, the Sydney Morning Herald article was written a year after the game came out, it could have a hardly been part of any launch PR campaign. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – I found a few more notable RS's from a quick google search. Seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, given WP:NEXIST. Article definitely needs work, but notable sources do exist out there.
 * 1) https://mashable.com/article/gods-unchained-trailer/
 * 2) https://venturebeat.com/2018/09/24/0x-leads-the-way-for-tokenization-of-the-world-and-collectible-game-items-are-next/
 * 3) https://www.engadget.com/2018-08-30-cryptokitties-gods-unchained-blockchain-art.html  H iddenL emon  //  talk  08:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify or delete. The sources from the above comment only make for four secondary sources, all of them WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. There is not enough in-depth coverage to keep the article as it currently stands. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 09:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t see how you could say that none of the sources are in-depth. That’s obviously not true.  H iddenL emon  //  talk  05:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify or delete: It doesn't meet WP:NCORP, lacks significant coverage. The org policy is a lot stricter than the GNG. Someone should move it to a draft. I assume that this game will be notable in the future, but it doesn't meet the requirements for an article at the moment. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment To everyone who is talking about WP:NCORP, Gods Unchained isn't a company, it's a video game. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair call, I'm beginning to doubt my delete vote. The venturebeat and engadget sources provide fairly decent coverage. With that said, are those even reliable sources? (EDIT: yes, they are RS according to: WP:RSP.) It's pretty borderline, but perhaps these three sources (1) and (2) and (3) are 'good enough' - the other sources are I guess a bonus. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC) EDIT: Actually, this source (4) is quite good too. I can't read this source due to paywall (5), but if that's a decent source, then I think this comfortably meets the GNG now...especially if NCORP doesnt apply. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep reasoning outlined above. I did a strike through my previous vote. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per HiddenLemon. Article is in bad shape, but there are enough RSes. ~EdGl talk 23:04, 22 January 2021 (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.