Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide Webb


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Worldwide Webb

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

Per WP:NCRYPTO, When establishing the notability of cryptocurrencies and other blockchain-related projects, the consensus is that crypto-centric news organizations—such as Coindesk or Bitcoin Magazine—generally cannot be used, as they do not provide coverage that can be considered "independent" from their subject. In light of this, the sources in the article do not establish that the article subject has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources, as the current sources are (in order of appearance):
 * 1) The crypto project's website;
 * 2) A crypto-specific news site;
 * 3) The crypto project's website (again);
 * 4) A second crypto-specific website;
 * 5) A TedX bio;
 * 6) A now-deadlink that is a raw interview;
 * 7) A website for a Slack-like company;
 * 8) A crypto-specific news website;
 * 9) A crypto-specific news website;
 * 10) The same crypto-specific news website as the previous one
 * 11) A crypto-specific news website;
 * 12) A whitepaper from a Venture Capital firm's crypto-specific website;
 * 13) A crypto-specific new site;
 * 14) A Forbes contributor source (see WP:FORBESCON.

After searching online, I am unable to find mainstream coverage of this crypto project that covers it significantly, independently, and comes from a reliable source. As such, I think this should article should either be deleted or be redirected to Thomas Webb (artist), the project's founder. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Visual arts, Cryptocurrency,  and Internet. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete From the angle of being a video game, WP:VG/S's custom search has a single hit, CNET. This isn't enough to pass GNG. At least as a VG, it doesn't look like it was seriously considered by any VG outlets. -- ferret (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't seem to have even been noticed outside the crypto echo chamber.  Even inside the cryptosphere, it doesn't seem to be getting much attention beyond the fact that it exists, and there's some number of dollars involved.  Which is pretty routine coverage for any new token. ApLundell (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - most sources are either unreliable or don't provide the significant third party coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  02:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Yet another promotional crypto game article. As stated above by everybody else, none of the sources establish notability. Merko (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NCRYPTO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, most sources are from unreliable crypto news sources, and heavily self promotes the subject in question to the point that it sounds like a press release. Most search results for 'Worldwide Webb' lead to crypto websites, the game's social media accounts, 'news' websites that seem to advertise the game, business websites about the game creator, and crypto value tracker websites. Overall, the subject in question is not notable and is only covered by crypto/video game websites or given few mentions on a CNET article on projects that utilize the metaverse and cryptocurrency. ShiriEditsTalk 04:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This extremely recent project has spent a great deal of effort getting paid coverage, such as the citation to AP which is actually a piece that PR Newswire was paid to carry, syndicated.  There's no notability at all here, just passing mentions.  If in a year this is still even around and has received some independent press, consider again.  FalconK (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are updated press articles from reliable sources and sources independent from the topic. This project has been included in independent press for years and received notable recognition to pass WP:GNG with these additions. Argueably, it has more reliable sources than some of the other articles featured in . Lvlyxl (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lvlyxl Claims of suitable reliable secondary sources require proof. Where are they? The nom has already explained why the sources above are unsuitable. Where are the crypto-independent sources? -- ferret (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has since been updated since nom's assessments. Full article about the game in Berliner Zeitung. Nomination for technical achievement award in video games at the Webby Awards - along with many more sources of credibility added to the original article. Lvlyxl (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Berliner Zeitung is about the earlier project, "Exercise in Hopeless Nostalgia", not the 2021 project, as is the Webby award. A related but separate topic in the end. -- ferret (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They are both the same project, game and engine - as mentioned by the founder and curators in multiple sources(pg.13). The article is following the same convention of documenting iterations and updates of the game as used in other video games such as Minecraft. Please give proof to suggest that they are separate projects. Lvlyxl (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, these sources are significant coverage independent of the subject, and are on reliable. My "delete" suggestion is weakened. Merko (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Webby nomination is not in-depth or notable. Even if WP:NWEB applied here, it requires winning the award, not being nominated. -- ferret (talk) 23:35, 4 June 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.