Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurism (website) (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. In closing this I do have to give more weight to arguments based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as opposed to other considerations such as Facebook likes. The main consideration here is the coverage the topic has received in third-party reliable sources, and there is consensus below that this isn't sufficient. Hut 8.5 17:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Futurism (website)

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

Just another one like The Next Web or YourStory. Made for Promotions by promotions alone and nothing else. High Degree of Self Promotions. Light2021 (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the previous discussion. It has received sufficient attention from independent sources (see the article's references section) to be considered notable. Another indicator of this notability are the ~3,9 million(!) likes of its facebook page. --Fixuture (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the last AfD you mentioned that Facebook likes thing. and that page is deleted now. Same argument will get same answer only. Facebook likes has nothing to do with notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MakeUseOf Light2021 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light2021: This is ridiculous and you know it - of course do facebook likes matter and are an indication of notability. There's the problem with bought facebook likes etc so these shouldn't be taken too serious - however they're still an indication and beyond than that when they're in the millions. --Fixuture (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixuture Ridiculous? Seriously? Facebook likes? Which wikipedia guidelines you are reading? not this one for sure! can you even cite your reference or the Ridiculous guidelines you are talking about? Millions of likes? I can make a page for you for your fiction company and get you million likes. That means we should write a page for this fictional company as well on Wikipedia. That's ridiculous! Light2021 (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light2021: Which ones are saying that these can't be regarded as an indication of notability? It's just common sense that millions of likes hint to notability of the subject.

I can make a page for you for your fiction company and get you million likes.

Oh you can? Please go ahead and do it. --Fixuture (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy that Wikipedia does not work on your "common sense". Else I don't know what you can make out of it. Believe me on this one. You can have Millions of Facebook likes without being even existed in real world. that is how they mislead people like you or like people even create this! Light2021 (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the closure of the previous AFD by SwisterTwister was a correct assessment of consensus that this article should be kept. Nothing has changed since then. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- to quote an AfD close on a similar topic (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MakeUseOf), "high Alexa rankings and Facebook likes" are not evidence of notability". I do not see sources in the article or at this AfD that cover the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I only closed as Keep the last time given there was no other comments in that set amount of time, this article currently, however, then suggests only the expected information and attention for such a new company, especially about what there is to advertise about it. Also, as we continue experiencing and battling these advertisements, it shows the concerns themselves here in that this article has not changed at all and that also then shows there's nothing to suggest otherwise better and sufficiently better given the amount of article age (now over 6 months and yet still the same trivial information). SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per
Talk) 08:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Help : My vote of stats is showing "Keep". Can someone help. why is the Keep vote where I have nominated for the deletion.Light2021 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Facebook likes are irrelevant here. The supposed "sources" are just filler material published to generate advertising clicks (a classic giveaway of this is the eyecatching use of numbers in titles: "40", 28", "30"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facebook likes do not contribute to notability unless reliable secondary sources take note of it. We are clear on that. Over here the coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject is missing and there is no need to have an article per
WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment isn't it that there are rarely articles about news websites (what is there to write about anyways?) - instead those news websites just feature articles themselves. Hence for notability here the websites popularity needs to be assessed. There are various indicators that allow for that to be done. Why don't we just go ahead and do that? --Fixuture (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.