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.
Social networking website that does not appear to meet
WP:NWEB or
WP:GNG. The article claims that this is the first Indian social networking website - that is clearly incorrect,
BIGADDA for instance existed well before Youflik did (
[1]), and that's just one example that I found after a short search. The claim that the site has 16,000 users is difficult to verify - there are no sources for the claim in any case. I can't find any significant coverage of the website in the press. There are a few articles about the launch of the site, some of which appear to be based on press releases, some of which seem original, but it's not enough to meet
WP:GNG as far as I can see. bonadeacontributionstalk 16:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete or complete rewrite – Article created by questionable SPA and edited by site's creator frequently; extreme
conflict of interest. I don't believe this is notable.
Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 17:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are two Times of India articles about the the site (a
2012 one on the youflik.cu.cc version, and
2013 one on the youflik.com version], a
The Hindu article, an
Udayavana article, a
DaijiWorld article, and many other well-established sources. However, all of these seem to be about the launch or relaunch of the site, published the week in which the two versions of the site were launched, making them somewhat of a "single-event" (
WP:ONEEVENT) story without the ongoing coverage needed for notability. The depth of coverage seems shallow as well; while the articles are about on the website and its creator, they don't go into much detail, and are very duplicative. I get the feeling newspapers simply regurgitated information from press releases issued by the company, without gathering or fact-checking information themselves, though that's speculation and doesn't matter for Wikipedia's notability criteria. I am not counting the cited
digitfreak.com reference as a reliable source, as that seems like a blog.
Agyle (
talk) 23:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Coverage seems
routine and not really helpful in establishing notability. Article can be recreated later if it get more
significant coverage. I agree that the current coverage looks to be basically press releases and blogs.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 14:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable with limited press coverage. Also clear conflict of interest of major contributors to this wiki.
Cowlibob (
talk) 10:22, 7 June 2014 (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.