Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetCITED (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GetCITED

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

No consensus as far its notability in 2008 - but almost 10 years on, the site is defunct and the article has not been expanded. I think we can conclude now that this was never and will never be notable as a stand-alone topic. Ping User:Randykitty, User:DGG - what do you think? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with the nom and can't find any references either. --Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. –Matthew - (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply a listing-esque page with simple announced information, regardless if it no longer exists, making an unconvincing article. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was notable previously, and therefore it remains notable. WP is a permanent record, not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2017 (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.