Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pudgy Penguins

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 keep‎. This is a procedural close. Both the article creator and the nominator have been blocked for UPE which is a distraction from evaluating the article on its merits. No penalty for an uninvolved editor nominating this article again in the future with a thoughtful, policy-based deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pudgy Penguins

[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)

Seems like a UPE as the creator also created the article on its owner, Luca Schnetzler which is also at AfD. This is why it has been draftified to go through AfC[1] but it is again directly put back to mainspace by the creator. Since, the notability seems on the borderline and the references looks like paid placements so AfD would be the best place for it. Bhivuti45 (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject is, unfortunately, notable, though the fairly clear COI/UPE violation is worrying. Going through the first few sources, the BBC article is not sigcov, but the NYT and two TechCrunch articles definitely are, and the Verge and FT articles probably as well. The Yahoo Finance articles are probably not, as they read more like press releases/statistics reports. The Fortune article might be GNG-level for the article on Schnetzler himself, but as an interview is not good for this article. Overall, that's 3-5 sources that count towards the GNG, which means ~~the subject is likely notable~~. The biggest weakness is that the article does not give a claim to notability, but it one could easily be added – the newspaper articles focus on the fact that the IP has been monetized in the real world to boost the value of the NFTs, which is interesting. For a closing admin, this is a keep !vote on the sources alone, but a neutral !vote because of the likely COI violation. If an uninvolved editor were to WP:TNT and use the sources to write a new article from scratch, I would be writing a clear keep !vote. Toadspike (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the comments below, I think there is a valid rationale for discounting the NYT source as not independent, since meeting NCORP requires more attention to independence than usual. I'm not experienced with the WP:TECHCRUNCH rules, but it seems that these two articles were written by a "real journalist" and are not just blog entries by random netizens, which means they should be OK. The FT article, on second glance, doesn't seem like SIGCOV to me.

This leaves two TechCrunch articles and one Verge article to meet the GNG/NCORP. That's 2 or 3 sources, depending on how you count. I will strike my earlier opinion and say the subject is likely not notable – it would take another solid source to convince me that we should keep this UPE around. Toadspike (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why are we here? The nomination statement admits to being procedural, the article isn't so bad as to be G11 eligible, and NYT, The Verge, TechCrunch are all clearly SIGCOV, and FT is good if short. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a topic has been mentioned on well known media doesn't make it notable by default. This topic may be notable (which is being discussed here) but there are literally paid placements available for these media (for instance, upwork listing). The NYT article reads more like an opinion piece and also see WP:TECHCRUNCH. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you to present a proper deletion rationale instead of what-ifs and article history retellings? The applicable standards are WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NCORP. If you think some of the sources in the article are paid placements, if some of the sources in the article don't amount to significant coverage, or some of the sources in the article aren't independent, please specifically identify which sources you believe are problematic. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the NYT article has a financial interest in the subject, I don't know whether or not that qualifies it as a promotional piece or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The staff there seems to be financial editor so it’s not an promotional piece. DIV IN E 10:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle makes a good point, thank you. Striking while I evaluate sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I actually did a search instead of relying on stuff in article. Here's Forbes staff [2]. It's partially interview, but there's ~3-4 solid paragraphs of SIGCOV and context each at the top and bottom. Bloomberg has a couple pieces, [3] [4]. Verge, which nobody has challenged, Forbes, and Bloomberg make three solid sources, with FT and TC falling somewhere around the SIGCOV line. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (User indef blocked) Per creator obviously but per sources too. The company is notable enough not only news sources but they are cited in many journals too if you have time to check. DIV IN E 10:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing to Keep this article why did you tag it for CSD G7? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of the article has declared UPE per here. I don't understand why he is tagging it for CSD! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while the topic might be notable for Wikipedia, something about the creator's claim could get it to speedy deletion!Dejaqo (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete promo. No independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 05:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is also about the toy line they made [5], it's a Forbes staff member page. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2024 (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.