Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cityblis


 * 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.  A  Train talk 08:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Cityblis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have previously objected to the deletion, but the website is gone now so the page is completely useless. iopq (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  10:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  10:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  10:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't delete biographies because people die, we don't delete articles about buildings because they're torn down, and we don't delete articles about companies because they no longer exist. Whether or not the company is no longer active is not relevant, only if they were notable and verifiable. History is important too. /Julle (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It wasn't particularly notable when it existed either. -iopq (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  06:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Noting that if kept/closed as no consensus, editing will have to be done to reflect its current status.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 29.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: A WP:SPA article about an online company. The article text and references describe its proposition and site features at start-up without making substantial claim to notability. There was a previous WP:PROD by an IP, which was rightly objected as the rationale was invalid: "This entity is referencing its, presumably, self-created article in unsolicited spam email. Presumably, this is to legitimize itself by reference. Propose deletion." Beyond the initial start-up announcement and some slightly later announcement coverage I am seeing nothing in terms of in-depth coverage of the platform or, for that matter, for its presumed demise. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep WP:CORPDEPTH has been cited, but it says "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." This subject meets that. Capitals00 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. The coverage is all of the launch (so not sustained), and largely in blogs/trade press websites that are now defunct. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- 100% advertorial content starting with the lead: "...interactive, multi-platform social eCommerce website...". Does not meet WP:NWEB / WP:CORPDEPTH either. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2017 (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.