Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LimeLife (3rd 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 procedural close with no prejudice against speedy renomination‎. Due to confusion over the article's topic being altered and changed back during the AFD, this discussion is unlikely to achieve something resembling consensus. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LimeLife[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a very curious article. It has been nominated twice and failed twice, mainly due to sources from multiple media outlets from before 2010 (see previous noms). Further, due to the browser redirecting scheme I suspect they were born as paid articles. However, they all mention LimeLife as a mobile phone company. Sometime between now and then LimeLife became a (alleged MLM) cosmetics company. Whether that LimeLife is the same as this LimeLife remains a mystery. Since the new LimeLife fails GNG I am unable to find independent sources referencing it as a cosmetics company. In any case, it is safe to assume the old LimeLife is long dead. I am curious to see where this AfD will go. RetroCosmos (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some time in 2021 Limelife's history was rewritten from its origins as a mobile phone company to the brainchild of a cosmetics company Alcone which notably does not have its own Wikipedia article. RetroCosmos (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this change is 8964BonCat (talk · contribs) that appears to be a single purpose account whose only actions are the editing of that article on the 30th of December 2021. On 21 December 2023, AnnaCbyAlcone (talk · contribs) made her sole edit and added that LimeLife had rebranded to "LimeLife by Alcone". RetroCosmos (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna (as if the username was not clear enough about the connection) is a "digital coordinator" for the company; after this comment was made, they said as much on the article's talk page and in a message on the help desk. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

article was previously about an American privately held digital media company based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Theroadislong (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split this mess into two separate articles: LimeLife (digital media company) and LimeLife (cosmetics company). Then we can discuss the merits of retaining one or both of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert the hijacked article back to Special:Permalink/058694903, the Dec 2021 version of the women-oriented digital media company. Hijacking an article should not result in the deletion of the original article. Standards have changed since the article was kept at AfD in 2012, so it can be renominated for deletion if desired. Hijacking an article is not acceptable on Wikipedia so there is no need to even consider the acceptability of the current contents. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The linked oldid goes to 2006 edit of an archive of the talk page for Chess containing messages from 2004 to 2006. Is the oldid you pasted missing one or more characters? - Purplewowies (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: Looking at the page history, it looks like StarryGrandma meant Special:PermaLink/1058694903. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 02:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Revert. Do it now. hijacking is unacceptable. Worry about the deletion(s) later. -Arch dude (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Per suggestions by StarryGrandma (talk · contribs) and Arch dude (talk · contribs) I have reverted to a prior version. The ones suggested by StarryGrandma and ayakanaa (talk · contribs) both still listed the prior mobile phone company as an MLM; I was unable to find information supporting this, so I have removed it from the new version. Since it looks like this is the direction the AfD will go, I question the coverage that led to the Keep consensus from the first AfD WP:SIRS. If anyone disagrees with the MLM removal or the reversion they are free to revert.
- San Jose Mercury News: Dead link. I do not assume this was an acceptable source for reasons that will later become apparent.
- Washington Post: The link literally says "paidContent". I reject this as Independent Coverage.
- BBC News: The article was not primarily about LimeLife. I would place this article as somewhere between a passing mention and a dedicated article.
- It is difficult to find more sources in the news due to time elapsed and the creation of a new LimeLife that has taken over search results. Someone has suggested that the reference list established notability. I address those now
- Forbes: Not Independent Coverage WP:FORBESCON
- San Francisco Business Times: I accept this as Independent Coverage.
- Red Herring: Top100 list - Trivial Coverage
- Fashion News: "PR Newswire" - I reject this as Independent.
Procedural Suggestion: close this AfD. It was opened as an AfD on the contents after the article was hijacked, but that content was effectively deleted by reversion. Discussion on the restored old article should be part of a new AfD. -Arch dude (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confused. The article was totally rewritten (the hijacking was reverted) while this AfD was in progress. It's unclear which version/subject we're invited to !vote on. Maproom (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2023 (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.