Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bastard Gan Punks

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard Gan Punks[edit]

[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)

Non-notable NFT project. Sources are largely non-RS and nothing turns up in Gnews, or anywhere else for that matter. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nastymagazine did a long piece on the project. Cointelegraph did a dedicated story on the project which comes up on Gnews. Snarflakes (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify non-RS? thanks. Snarflakes (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This list [1] shows the good, the ok and the not ok sources. Aim for more of the good ones. What you've used for sourcing isn't acceptable, as it's mostly press-releases or information from sites without clear editorial standards. Oaktree b (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, these maybe lightweight sources, but the content is artwork and isn't controversial, which can be acceptable sources per (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources).

"Consider the type of content being referenced, alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources, while information related to biomedicine and living persons typically require the most weighty ones." Snarflakes (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NFT project has done almost $16,000,000 in historical trading volume, and has been verified by Opensea since its inception because it has been recognized by them as a notable NFT project. https://opensea.io/collection/bastard-gan-punks-v2. I'm not sure if any of those facts would be necessary for the wikipedia article though. Snarflakes (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a new editor, reading WP:GNG may be helpful, as it is the basic notability guideline that all articles have to pass. Specifically, at least two sources in the article have to be secondary, reliable, significant (as in the amount that the subject is mentioned and the length of the source) and independent of the subject to pass it. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the specific guidance, I added two more independent secondary sources. Snarflakes (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One third-party source that isn't a crypto blog is really not enough to cut it - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an additional secondary source, who not only is independent of the subject but also provides a comprehensive list of citations at the conclusion of this primarily historical review. They include a timeline infographic at the end of the piece. Snarflakes (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I've added a source from Artnews, "It is the oldest and most widely distributed art magazine in the world" per their wikipedia page. Please review, thanks. Snarflakes (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be a notable NFT. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an additional secondary source, which selected this NFT project in particular as an example of a highly complex data set for stress testing of machine learning pattern recognition. Snarflakes (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the sources used aren't really solid. For example, Sparklewerk does not seem particularly significant; looking at the associated Twitter account, it only has 31 followers, A Google search reveals almost no hits for the website. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just added another source. ArtNews, established in 1902, with its own wikipedia page. If you can please review, appreciated. Snarflakes (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to the great feedback from the editors here, I have updated the sources to include 4 citations. This includes 3 new reliable secondary sources that outline the significance and notability of the AI art project. The above editors have yet to review and respond to the latest sources and provide feedback, it would be much appreciated if they would prior to the end of the review period. Snarflakes (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vice is reliable, but it's a passing mention. ArtNews appears to be reliable via Penske Media Corporation, though it's only dedicating two paragraphs on this topic. Nasty Magazine doesn't have a byline, and their about page suggests these are artist submissions, not fully independent of the subject. SWinxy (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2023 (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.