Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mars House


 * 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Mars House

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Spammy article written by an UPE. Coverage of the NFT is thin in reliable sources and has no sustained coverage. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep pains me to say so, but the Business Insider and CNN articles are good, the Architectural Digest is reliable, but minimal, coverage. GNG is met from what I see. Not a fan of anything crypto/NFT, but it's there and GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: The coverage of the subject in the already brief CNN article amounts to about two sentences. The community has not agreed on the reliability of Business Insider, so we shouldn't use that article as a basis for the subject's notability. The subject has ultimately turned out to be a clickbaity news blip without longevity or encyclopedic relevance. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 00:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The actual asset being described has only received coverage within the context of the selling of said asset, so it is an event that has the coverage; WP:PERSISTENCE applies. All of the sources either are around the time of the sale or are within a window of a couple of weeks after it, and per WP:PERSISTENCE: Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. There's no coverage outside of that event, which itself is only a blip in coverage. That mixed with the shaky amount of actual substance in coverage Throast describes above means that this is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aoidh Andre🚐 17:01, 25 September 2022 (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.