Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ILounge


 * 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. Tone 18:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

ILounge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable website. A handful of other outlets have picked up on rumors posted by the site but there is no actual in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment this here in Wired is the best reference from the article, but more is needed for WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep iLounge appeared to have been listed on the Time magazine and The Telegraph under its most useful websites.

Big news websites such as BBC News, Engadget, TechCrunch , Ars Technica , CNET appears to have followed up with iLounge for iPhone/iPad/iPod related news and updates for many years. - Hakhan201 17:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Being on a list of 50 "interesting links we think you should click" is not in depth coverage. It's a two sentence blurb with 50 others, despite it being from TIME. Same goes for this. The rest are not independent, reliable or in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Praxidicae is correct. This fails software notability criteria by a mile. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even though many references are provided, the fact that only brief or trivial mentions of iLounge are made is insufficient to demonstrate notability. WP:WEBCRIT explicitly states that trivial statements or simple reports are inadequate. Additionally, the mention in TIME and other well-known sources still fails WP:INHERITWEB in establishing notability because it is not significant or devoted coverage, regardless of the credibility of these publishers. ComplexRational (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2019 (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.