Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vote Match

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 redirect to Voting advice application. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Match[edit]

[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)

No evidence of WP: Notability, unsourced since 2012, when it was last prodded (hence why I haven't prodded it myself). Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Voting advice application. This is discussed in sources [1][2], but only as one of many such apps. I'll change my vote if more substantial coverage is found. SpinningSpark 12:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd be OK with the redirect proposed by Spinningspark, but there is no information about this topic at that page, save for a link to this page, which if turned into a redirect would provide the reader with no additional information, hence WP:PRESERVE isn't applicable. I tried a wide search, and other than sources Spinninspark found I couldn't find anything. There may be something in UK newspaper archives, to which I do not have access. The sources available are casual mentions, and give no information except being included in a list, and giving some results from using the application. Therefore the article fails WP:V, and I don't see how it is possible to build anything within policy beyond a ministub stating what would be already obvious to anyone seeking information. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. The original deprod states that Google News has several hits on the topic. If it did then, it no longer does ("No Results Found") and I am not bright enough to figure out how to find them. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe the see also section of that article should be turned into a list of voting advice applications, in which case Vote Match could stay mentioned without being a circular link. I've just been through the see also and removed all the ELs and redlinks (which was most of it), but if the list suggestion is taken up, some of them could be restored if they can be sourced to something independent of their own websites. SpinningSpark 14:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found, might have been a few when this website/app thing was launched. It appears to have fizzled out without leaving much of a trace. Even using the website, it says Vote Match 2015 is "coming soon!". Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2022 (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.