Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicorn DAO


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Unicorn DAO

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

Guardian mention of Unicorn DAO is two sentences. Only source that passes GNG is Time. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Cryptocurrency. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sexuality and gender.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello I read up on the GNG and added some sources (rolling stone) etc etc . I do think it fights the General Notability Guidelines - "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
 * Significant Coverage - Time, Rolling Stone, Decrypt, Coin Telegraph, Guardian
 * Reliable Sources - Time and Rolling Stone are notable - Decrypt and Coin Telegraph are widely respected in the crypto world.
 * Regarding the Guardian Article - "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - Guardian article is cited for first purchase
 * Thank you for reviewing Pathofkarma (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also updated with Grimes tweet from today with announcement of joining. Pathofkarma (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are 3 paragraphs on unicorn dao in guardian article. Pathofkarma (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Update 1 - Removed non GNG sources. Leaving Sources Time + Guardian + CNN.Pathofkarma

Update 2 -Coin Telegraph is a respected source in Crypto and Web3 News. Thank you for review Sungodtemple CAPTAIN RAJU (T)

Update 3 - Added ArtNet + ArtCritic Report on % sales of female nft artists.

Update 4 - Re GNG - added Rolling Stone. Assume Articles from Time + Rolling Stone + Mention in Guardian + multiple crypto outlets is enough to fulfill GNG. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The CNN article does not mention UnicornDAO and the CoinTelegraph article has a single-word trivial mention. I cannot access the Rolling Stone article, but given its title and link I would assume it is focused on Pussy Riot and not Unicorn DAO. This leaves Time and Decrypt. To be honest, I think UkraineDAO has enough GNG sources to merit its own article. The UnicornDAO article is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you cannot access the Rolling stone / it is not paywalled - the byline is "They’re also launching a new organization to benefit women and LGBTQ+ artists called UnicornDAO" and have 6 long paragraphs specific to Unicorn DAO.
 * Removing Coin Telegraph as that isn't a great source of info - Decrypt article is dedicated (however neither of these are on perrenial list).
 * Adding Grimes tweet from today with her involvement - https://twitter.com/Grimezsz/status/1525981460561137664?s=20&t=cbeIrcsaeB5VPW1pN7FSzg
 * Please let me know when you have reviewed the rolling stone article. Pathofkarma (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

— Summarizing here for easier review:

Summary of Perrenial Sources that cover this article according to guidelines on the General Notability Guidelines "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Perennial Sources

- Time - Sole focus of article / Exclusive

- Variety - Multiple Paragraphs and interview topic

- Guardian - Multiple mentions and interview topic

- Rolling Stone - Byline of Article, many paragraphs

Tangential

- CNN - Contextual

Not Perennial (but substantial coverage)

- Decrypt

- Tweet of Musician Grimes

- Bloomberg —

User Sungodtemple who flagged for deletion has stated they have not reviewed the refs and are basing off title alone, or are only searching for the business name. Requesting review of refs by Sungodtemple or admin and push to oppose/keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathofkarma  (talk • contribs) 02:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nadezhda Tolokonnikova - the WP:ORG guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. This is a newly-formed organization, and it appears to be WP:TOOSOON to meet these heightened standards at this time. For example, this March 2022 article in Rolling Stone is focused on a new song release and has one graf of independent content about Unicorn Dao and a quote from Tolokonnikova about the goal of the organization. The March 2022 CNN article is about a fundraiser organized by Unicorn Dao, quotes Tolokonnikova and the organization website, and includes independent context that does not seem to add a lot of WP:ORGDEPTH. The March 2022 Time article has an overall focus on Tolokonnikova and includes a substantial focus on the launch of the organization, including quotes from founders and general as well as specific context. The March 2022 Guardian interview with Tolokonnikova includes indepenent content about her, and quotes from her about Unicorn Dao. March 2022 coverage in The Art Newspaper is mostly a collection of quotes related to the launch of Unicorn Dao, including some focused generally on the art market. March 2022 coverage from Variety is based around an interview with Tolokonnikova and includes content related to the public art exhibition Patriarchy RIP curated by Unicorn Dao. I have also not found independent and reliable coverage beyond this early burst of publicity, and WP:SUSTAINED coverage is needed to support a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Re WP:SUSTAINED have added Bloomberg coverage from May.
 * Time / March 2022 on formation of DAO
 * Rolling Stone / March 2022 on formation of DAO
 * Variety / March 2022 on public art exhibit
 * Bloomberg / May 2022 on activist initiatives
 * Should be GNG as well as show sustained Pathofkarma (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Added Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2022-05-19/unicorndao-working-to-fix-crypto-bro-culture-video — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Bloomberg TV source is an interview with Tolokonnikova, and her statements are not independent content that can help support notability. According to the notability guideline for organizations, 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. Beccaynr (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Checking on the relist recheck by an admin, thank you 45.19.165.201 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe there are enough reliable sources for a stand alone article. I think this new industry is catching news rapidly. JK.Kite (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NCRYPTO states that crypto-centric publications may not be used to show notability. I do not currently have an opinion one way or the other on the rest of the sources provided. //  Maddy  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  22:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sum of Perrenial Sources fits GNG, with seperate and significant events that don't fit into another article. Pathofkarma (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: Pathofkarma (talk • contribs)  has already cast a vote above.
 * Comment Per WP:ORGDEPTH, with the exception of the Time article, these sources are not significant, including because Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Per this guideline, Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. The overall coverage appears to be focused on Tolokonnikova, so what she has developed can be included in her article, and if sufficient sources become available to support the notability of the organization, a separate article can be created in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Rolling Stone, Variety, Guardian use multiple paragraphs each discussing topics outside the scope of Time Mag article specific to Unicorn. 45.19.165.201 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have discussed the sources in my comments above as well as the applicable guideline, but please also note that per the WP:PROMO policy, Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts, so this should be considered when assessing sources based on promotional quotes from the founders and the organization's website. Beccaynr (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I spent some time on reading the sources and concluded that GNG is nearly met. Sources are from authentic media houses and everyone thinks that merging and toosoon are the options so def not a delete. Elena Marcus D (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - the sources are OK, and although Tolokonnikova is the face of the organization and its main spokesperson, there's enough coverage of the organization's activity in reliable sources beyond just her activity. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  21:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 21:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nadezhda Tolokonnikova or Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
 * Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
 * "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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company
 * This from Time is a profile on Tolokonnikova before the topic organization had even come into existence. All of the information is provided by Tolokonnikova and the article has no "Independent Content" (fails ORGIND) and no in-depth information on the company (it's all forward-looking crystal ball stuff), fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This from The Art Newspaper also relies entirely on information available online from the company and from Tolokonnikova, also fails ORGIND
 * Neither this from CNN nor this from ArtNet don't even mention this organization, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from The Guardian is mainly about Tolokonnikova but mentions the topic organization in passing using quotes from her, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
 * This from Variety is based on an interview with Tolokonnikova and the topic organization gets a mention-in-passing, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
 * This Bloomberg piece is an interview with Tolokonnikova, fails ORGIND
 * This from decrypt.co takes all its information from a co-founder, Rebecca Lamis, fails ORGIND.
 * None of the reference meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing</b>++ 21:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep With Time and the multiple other ref's, we've got notability. I've also found a brief mention in LA Weekly, and brief mention in Italian Vanity Fair . Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Response Please provide paragraph/page numbers as to *why* Time (and multiple other refs) does not fail ORGIND and meets CORPDEPTH/NCORP please. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They're acceptable sources. A bunch of little sources ad up to enough of a mention in my books to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the reasoning. Except you may not therefore be aware that combining sources doesn't qualify those references towards notability as per WP:SIRS. We don't combine little sources and say that the combination is the same as a big source. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Nadezhda Tolokonnikova. I agree with the assessments of <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>. The references do not establish notability. Merko (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep strike duplicate !vote Stands on its own. Disagree with Merge as it is separate from Pussy Riot. It is founded by Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, but also includes other notable founders - Beeple, Grimes, Guy Oseary who have not been involved on a notable business together prior Pathofkarma (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: Pathofkarma (talk • contribs)  has already cast a vote above.
 * Comment So far, not one Keep !voter has even tried to justify, using reasoning and guidelines, why any of the references meets WP:NCORP. This is not a !vote-counting exercise. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Updated with another independent perennial source / Gizmodo on 6.9.22 - https://gizmodo.com/pussy-riot-nft-texas-abortion-blockchain-russia-1849047057
 * The article mostly focuses on an unrelated Pussy Riot protest and NFT, then offers limited content from the UnicornDAO website, what appears to be a crypto publication, and promotional statements from Tolokonnikova, without sufficient depth per the heightened standard for sources in the WP:ORG guideline discussed above. Beccaynr (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP, as per source analysis by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.