Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waifu Labs


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Waifu Labs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article for a non notable website. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Appears highly promotional in tone; not sure if WP:SPAM, but doesn’t seem to be a notable website or business either way. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - With its references, it meets the bare minimum for an article. However, it's definitely sourced better better than many articles I've seen that've existed for years, and I'm not just saying that because I created it. —  Melofors   TC  04:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, its 209 pageviews on its first day shows that its somewhat notable. —  Melofors </b>  TC </b> 06:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The only reliable source used, Wired, is about one of the authors and not the site itself (WP:NOTINHERITED). A search did not bring up any coverage in reliable sources. Opencooper (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Mainly promotional (such as including the price to buy a body pillow). While there is some coverage because its...well bloody unusual...most of the sources aren't high quality and there is just not enough coverage. I find the reliability of the non-English sources to be questionable, but since I don't speak the langauge I can't fully vet them. The Futurism article is pretty brief. The Medium article is good, but not sufficient by itself. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.