Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchify

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) 10:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matchify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional article about a non-notable app. No indication of any significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. M4DU7 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable defunct app, fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as not notable & long-defunct. --Lockley (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added a couple of refs which seems to be reliable. Dtt1^Talk 15:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Matrimony.com: Barely found anything about the app other than user feedback. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to Matrimony.com. I think it's a good compromise between outright deletion and retaining what little about it might be notable. Including the couple of new refs. I don't think the new refs on their own are enough to warrant keeping the article though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete New sources do not cover the topic in significant detail, which means it still fails WP:GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't find anything that suggests it's notable --Devokewater @ 17:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Though the app has already shut down and i unable to find anything that could justify its notability.DMySon 04:25, 18 July 2020 (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.