Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1DayLater (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. This is a tough one to close. It would be helpful if a dispassionate discussion regarding the value of the individual sources were discussed, rather than "there's no substantial coverage" "yes there is!" "No there's not!"... As this has already been relisted three times I'm not going to relist again. If I had to choose between a binary option at gunpoint I'd close as "delete", but I don't believe the consensus is strong enough here to do that. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

1DayLater
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Coverage appears limited to buzz from when the company started in 2010 (it closed in 2013). Is included on some "Best of 2010" lists but none provide more substantial information about the company. A previous AfD seems to have focused on whether or not now-defunct companies can be notable (they can). Looking through the sources that exist, I'm not sure there's enough here to support an article (or to call "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."). Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging participants from previous AfD. Ajpolino (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Originally I was in favor of deleting this, but then someone convinced me that even a defunct site can be worth keeping for historical reasons. So I went out and found the Wayback Machine archive of the closing announcement, which as I recall took some time. Currently we are the #1 hit for "1DayLater" on Google, and the app is still being recommended at app sites like this one. The article got about 1500 page views in the year 2017, which is 1500 people who found out what they needed to know (that the app is defunct and they need to find a different one). I don't see what useful purpose would be served by deleting it now. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - some minor references. Did not survive long enough to become notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliavle independemt sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. What's this "we," Margin1522 ?-The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Per nom. -Mar11 (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * keep it seemed to pass the discussion the first time around and I see no reason to overturn that decision. Notability is not temporary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.