Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GifBoom

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GifBoom[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)

Defunct service. Not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There are some hits.[1][2][3] Nothing constituting significant coverage and all likely not independent (shill). Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Checked Google Books as well. Same result: no WP:SIGCOV. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found mentions of the product in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and in a few peer reviewed journal articles: "Instafame: Luxury Selfies in the Attention Economy" by Alice E. Marwick, Public Culture, 2015, Vol.27(1 75), p.137; and "Depressed adolescents' positive and negative use of social media", Radovic, Ana ; Gmelin, Theresa ; Stein, Bradley D ; Miller, Elizabeth, Journal of Adolescence, February 2017, Vol.55, pp.5-15. However, gifboom was only mentioned tangentially and was not the primary subject of any of these articles. Ultimately fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2019 (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.