Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colourlovers (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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colourlovers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I concur with User:DGG who AfD it 3 years ago. This organization does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (websites) or Wikipedia:Notability (companies). The current refs include references to its own website, press releases, and a dead link to a local newspaper. Last AfD had keep arguments, but they just reveal the participants and closing editor's lack of familiarity with the AfD - they were mostly assertioons of WP:ITSUSEFUL, and AFD are not a vote. The only argument of some validity was that the website got a short paragraph in Time's 2008 list of best websites ([1]). I don't think that's enough - one paragraph is still a far cry from the requirement for multiple, reliable, in-depth coverage. We are NOT a directory of minor websites. Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I said before, "Unimportant social website with no evidence for notability and very little purpose altogether. Previous Afd in 2012, with no consensus-- the keep argument was apparently based on webby awards, which turned out to be webby nominations, which are not significant for notability . The TIME material is mere inclusion on a list, not substantial coverage. Everything else is a press release or the equivalent. The only thing added since then is Alexa rank, which we never accept as indicating notability"

the principal argument in the last AfD was COLOU�R IS IMPORTANT. Has I noticed, I would have considered deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.