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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo ( talk) 23:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply

CryptoKitties (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain articles are under general sanctions. The sources cited in the article I would largely view as unreliable, as they are primarily publications within the crypto realm. (Though Industry publications are not inherently unreliable) I'm just not seeing the notability, other than the WP:TRIVIA of being the first "game" to incorporate blockchain technology. Bkissin ( talk) 19:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep Easily passes WP:GNG by a longshot. Has Venturebeat [1], Bloomberg [2], NPR [3], CNET [4], NYT.com [5], Fortune [6], TechCrunch [7], San Francisco Chronicle [8], BBC [9], SSRN (academic) [10], about 5 more google books sources, etc. @ Bkissin: did you even bother to look at google news [11] or google books [12] before nominating this? Note WP:Trivia also has no bearing on WP:GNG, thus your nomination doesn't even state a valid reason for nomination (as there clearly are a lot of high quality WP:RS that features the article's subject). Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 21:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. in spite of our usually well-warranted skepticism for topics such as this, it seems the NYT article along with the others just mentioned are sufficient to justify it. I tend to be rather suspicious about coverage based on press releases, but the NYT article at least seems genuinely reliable and the CBC only slightly based upon the company's PR. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC) . reply

Thanks DGG. I wasn't 100% on it, but I figured that it was worth the discussion given the number of sources and notability. But Smithandteam is right, perhaps this was more of a WP:Snowball situation. Bkissin ( talk) 23:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep and WP:Snowball - this is a very notable scam (/s WP:SOAP). @SmithAndTeam ( talk) 21:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:56, 3 October 2018 (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.