Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designspiration


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Designspiration

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable website. Originally stuffed with list mentions as sources, the article creator stripped them out while removing the PROD tag. Which leaves: two primary sources (an article by and an interview with the site owner), one passing mention in an article about using CSS, a blog posting, a promotional posting ("...The kind folks at Designspiration have given us 3 free invites..."), and a two-paragraph mention at "Print" magazine's website. Calton | Talk 14:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the Print magazine is the best source. But it's not just me liking Designspiration, it's a fact that it's a major website of its kind. I mean in its category. Those lists were just a reflection of its popularity. Shouldn't that mean something? --Jagged-pill (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 (c)  22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is a promotion that does not ascertain that it is notable. - Pmedema (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 21.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 03:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article seems to be a promotional article. The primary source for this article is not notable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 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.