Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sandbox (blockchain platform)

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. While there is some disagreement, the consensus here is that sources don't provide adequate WP:SIGCOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandbox (blockchain platform)

[Hide this box]New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very subtle case of WP:PROMO. I keep an eye on Metaverse to ward off the heaps of crypto spam we get over there. I get it, WP:AGF and all, but this one came to my attention after an account with no history editing tech articles mysteriously tried to shoehorn a link to this article there.

Anyway, I think the big problem here is that all the coverage of this project is either WP:ROUTINE funding announcements, rehashed press releases, and WP:ROUTINE business partnerships.

A little bit of digging reveals the Yahoo! Finance article to be a paid article, all of the VentureBeat articles are sourced exclusively to the company/CEO. The closest thing we have to WP:SIGCOV is announcements of partnerships, but I'd argue these straddle the line between WP:INHERITED and WP:ROUTINE.

I recommend all editors voting on this to read WP:FUNDED and WP:SERIESA. BrigadierG (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Cryptocurrency. BrigadierG (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nom. The nice formatting of the article doesn't help the fact that all the sources are poor quality, and these routine "fundraising" announcements from VentureBeat are useless for notability. The Vogue article focuses on Gucci, not this "Sandbox". Certainly no WP:NCORP-quality sources here. Ovinus (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The previous merge discussion clearly indicated this is a separate game, and judging by the sources, a non-notable one. Therefore it should be deleted per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator. At first glance it looks well sourced with references from Vogue and Yahoo Finance, but they are just routine articles and not significant coverage. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Honestly, Dean Takahashi should probably be removed as a reliable source. He's a walking shill for crypto now. Between that and acting as a company mouthpiece for Quantic Dream, he's got almost no semblance of journalistic integrity anymore. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also worth noting that the primary contributor is a SPA with no other edits Special:Contributions/Doublecocoa. Clear case of SELFPROMO/paid editing. No one writes this as their first edit for fun. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Squinting past the crypto sources in a Google search , I am finding non promotional coverage as the game is a leading example of the metaverse. Fortune, WSJ, and reuters for example. I do agree the article needs to eliminate much of the promotional puffers, but this is a legit topic to be kept that can be sourced without touching dangerous crypto sources --Masem (t) 20:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.