Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorare


 * 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Additional reliable sources were presented in discussion that prove notability. H iddenL emon //  talk  21:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorare

 * – ( View AfD View log )

''Note: No longer unconvinced of subject's notability. My nomination for deletion is withdrawn.''

I'm on the fence with this one. At first glance of sources currently cited, it seems non-notable; the Business Insider is the only one that might count. However, after a search online, I found a handful of RS's, but some don't contain WP:SIGCOV.

The potential RS's I found are listed in the first comment below for brevity. Figured I'd at least open this AfD for others to discuss and find consensus since I'm not convinced one way or the other. H iddenL emon //  talk  23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.   H iddenL emon  //  talk  23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.   H iddenL emon  //  talk  23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions.   H iddenL emon  //  talk  23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   H iddenL emon  //  talk  23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   H iddenL emon  //  talk  23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   H iddenL emon  //  talk  23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   H iddenL emon  //  talk  23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions.   H iddenL emon  //  talk  23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – The sources I found that may or may not demonstrate notability:
 * Business Insider: Currently cited in article, weak notability according to WP:RS/P
 * Fox Business: Reliable for non-politics/science, brief mention but not trivially so.
 * CNN Brasil: Good, notable source, includes WP:SIGCOV, but is WP:NONENG and I'm not sure if CNN's notability/reliability extends to foreign language publications like this.
 * ABC News: Again, good source, but like the Fox Business source, only has brief mention (not trivially so, IMO) but includes almost exactly the same info as Fox Business.
 * VentureBeat: Not the sole focus of the article, yet is more ore less significant in the context as it goes into some detail about each related business/product mentioned.
 * Here's also a source assessment table if anyone wants to use it (honestly, I just wanted to try creating one to see how it looks/functions).  H iddenL emon  //  talk  23:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was looking for game reviews, but what I found is not impressive: Medium.com and Forbes.com  (M is a game review, F is a news coverage we missed so far) IMHO are borderline as a lot of their content is de facto blogging, one decent review on a blog (but blogs are not RS by default). Then there's is the coverage from the cryptocurrency press, but I have had serious doubts about the reliability of those for years (walled garden of circular reporting and rewriting based on press releases and likely PR...). Hmmm. It's borderline. There's a decent amount of mentions, but mostly of low reliability. But it is diverse enough to be more than the obvious spam-delete 'two press releases and three rewrites'. I am undecided now, ping me if more arguments for or against are presented. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I found several reliable foreign sources that discuss Sorare in a non-trivial way: La Republica, La Stampa , Handelsblatt , Les Echos (France) , Capital (French magazine) and I consider the mentioned CNN Brasil good enough . Should be enough for to pass WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  to see this. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Some good sources there - happy to keep on that basis. GiantSnowman 11:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - receives coverage from a wide number of reliable and prominent news sources, passing WP:GNG Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per available sourcing presented above. Regardless, the article needs heavy cleanup. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 11:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominator withdrawal – Based on the additional RS provided by Jovanmilic97, I'm convinced this is notable enough to keep. I'll withdraw this AfD nomination in a few moments. Thanks all. H iddenL emon  //  talk  20:49, 3 February 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.