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 in some form or another. Even most delete-!votes acknowledge that the topic probably should be mentioned in Assange's article or another place, so outright deletion is out of the question. There is no clear consensus whether the article should survive as a stand-alone article or be merged and redirected somewhere else but this can be discussed on the talk page. Regards So Why 08:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AssangeDAO[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)

While Julian Assange is unquestionably notable, AssangeDAO is not. The quality references in this piece (CBS, BBC, etc.) are only used to support statements about Assange, not about the DAO. Those that write about the DAO are a mix of poor-quality sources (crypto blogs like CoinDesk and Coin Rivet), an interview with an artist that briefly mentions the DAO, and one decent source (Fortune). At the very most this justifies a brief mention in Julian Assange, though I'm not convinced the Fortune source is enough to justify even that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Popular culture, and Computing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article subject itself, as opposed to the individuals involved, does not meet SIGCOV. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the coinrivet and coindesk sources from the article, there is a consensus not to use crypto sources on all cyrpto articles. After that it still seems half a dozen sources remain (I didn't look to see if they were simply passing mention). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: Strictly for my own edification, could you please link to the page where formal consensus was achieved not to use crypto sources on all crypto articles? I'd find that discussion most helpful. Thank you. Rinpoach (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we are using this Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#RfC_to_tighten_sourcing_on_this_article and WP:GS/Crypto. These two have greatly clamped down on the rampant WP:PROMO that is often WP:COI related on crypto articles. There might be another RFC or discussion that was done relating to coindesk or something like that at RSN. Its been a couple of years since this consensus started. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since nomination at 18:33, 19 April 2022, two of the original references (CoinDesk and Coin Rivet) have been removed. They have been replaced by four references to non-crypto sources: Business Insider, Reuters, and two separate citations to Wired. I hope editors will deem this sufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. And at the risk of invoking WP:WHATABOUT, I would be remiss to not point out that AssangeDAO surpassed ConstitutionDAO in amount raised, and unlike its predecessor actually succeeded in purchasing the item upon which it bid. If ConstitutionDAO is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page, surely AssangeDAO is, too. Rinpoach (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge. There is some coverage but it's pretty much news about one event. I think it's borderline, but a merge might be best for now. If the DAO surives and is covered again in some other capacity, then it would likely deserve a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Respectfully, I draw your attention to ConstitutionDAO, which is notable only for a single event and did not survive the failure to achieve its sole purpose. By contrast, AssangeDAO scored a spectacular success in raising a record amount of funds, with which it achieved their initial goal. As shown by the group's active official website, Discord, Twitter (with 19.3K followers), and Substack presence, AssangeDAO survives as members discuss how to continue the organization's broader mission "to inspire a powerful solidarity network and fight for the freedom of Julian Assange." As for your suggestion of a merge, I presume you mean merging into the Julian Assange BLP. Given the ongoing resistance of involved editors to expand that voluminous page even slightly, a merge proposal is almost certainly doomed. Rinpoach (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to a brief mention in Julian Assange, as suggested by the nominator and echoed by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Decentralized autonomous organization could also be a viable merge target. If AssangeDAO is a one-off event with no lasting influence or sustained interest, then we can't justify an article; if it goes anywhere, it belongs in context rather than isolation. Either way, a stand-alone article isn't justifiable. Pointing to ConstitutionDAO is just WP:WAX; arguably, that page only exists because nobody has cared to put it up for deletion or merging. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: AssangeDAO is already included in the Assange BLP, as a 2-sentence paragraph at the end of subsection 5.6 Appeal and other developments. If you are suggesting that involved editors would agree to expand that paragraph, I respectfully submit you are mistaken. AssangeDAO is also already listed at Decentralized autonomous organization. As for ConstitutionDAO, I agree that given the standard set above by GorillaWarfare in nominating AssangeDAO for deletion, she or you or another user ought to likewise nominate ConstitutionDAO for deletion. We should not be applying a double standard here. Rinpoach (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, probably salt. Artw (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has more sources than some of the other crypto articles we have btw. I dont think merge to the Assange article is a good idea either, that article is practically a warzone with political editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed weak to just regular keep after seeing comments of Duckmather below. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree w/ nominator, per WP:GNG. The topic is does not see coverage beyond passing mention in any of the cited sources -- Wired ("Assange's NFT Clock Sale Rides a Wave of DAO Crowdfunding") & Business Insider are probably the best things here but are pretty limited in their coverage, they don't make a clear case for general notability. Following WP:THREE in my assessment here. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep searching for WP refs brings up lots of sources: Wired, Reuters (which also happens to be ref #2), a brief mention in The Guardian, and two articles in Yahoo Finance that are quite in-depth. As for refs already listed: #1 is quite in-depth, #2 is already mentioned, #3-7 are background info (discussed by nom), #8 gives a single-sentence mention to AssangeDAO, and #9 looks pretty in-depth too. Counting #1, #2, #9, and the three others I found, this gives six detailed sources on AssangeDAO - much more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Duckmather (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom. Looking at some of Duckmather's evidence, some of the sources are mere namedrops (e.g. The Guardian) and don't demonstrate GNG, and others don't show a real meaning/notability to this external to Assange, which means for presentational reasons this would be best covered in Assange's article. To be clear, I think the low bar of GNG is met, but meeting GNG doesn't guarantee standalone articles, and I think this particular subject matter is probably better discussed in Assange's article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a flash in the pan that received the brief flurry of electronic media time and that goes with anything on NFTs, Assange, anit-government-intelligence, etc. etc. Like all such trivia, it's generated hysteria among the fans and faithful without any ongoing mainstream significance. There was no substantial and reliably verified information as to the details of this DAO other than the somewhat dubious claim that it was solely to benefit Assange. The amount of money is trivial in the world of NFTs. WP is not an indiscriminate compilation of news and recent events. It is UNDUE for the Assange BLP, which already contains too much scrapbook-like fan coverage of minor details and fleeting mentions of Assange. If the DAO is demonstrated to fit WP criteria for either significance (article content) or notability (article subject) we can always reconsider at such time. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a historically significant article. It is the first time that I know of that a crypto project has been used in relation to defending the right to freedom of expression, and justice of a human rights defender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.36.208 (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And has your opinion been cited by a mainstream reliable source publication, or is this its only appearance? SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The historic nature of AssangeDAO, as cited by mainstream reliable sources, is not due to its primacy but to what Business Insider called "the stunning amount generated by over 10,000 contributors," which Fortune reported "smashes Juicebox's previous fundraising record from ConstitutionDAO." Rinpoach (talk) 05:28, 27 April 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.