Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StoryFire

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StoryFire

[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)

The article relies primarily on non-independent, self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves in the form of tweets and YouTube videos by one of the founders.

Remaining sources, with the exception of a couple Tubefilter articles, do not extend beyond trivial mentions of the topic. A notability tag has been in place for several months, and notability has not been established. Besides, the platform features at best three notable creators, one of which does not even have their own Wikipedia article. The shutdown announcement currently makes up about half of the article, yet it has not been covered by any independent source, as it does not extend beyond mere YouTube and social-media "drama". throast (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. throast (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. throast (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. throast (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at the sourcing, the migration of users such as LeafyIsHere implies the subject could potentially become notable soon. However, it currently isn't, so deleting without bias against a potential recreation is the best option here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The site is definitely a thing and is described accurately. 2603:8000:AA41:C200:6C0B:A37:39DF:98DB (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not delete" is not the proper way of voting, so I am changing it to "Keep." You need to provide valid reasons why it meets WP:GNG. The article lacks enough news coverage. If there are more out there, feel free to provide them or add to the article.Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per my above comment, it doesn't meet WP:GNG. I did a google search too and cant find too much. The company name is generic and brings up unrelated results. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the site aside from a Times article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this badly fails WP:NCORP; there is almost no independent coverage on this company let alone addressing it directly and in depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh dear, I did not realize sources were this bad. I looked for better sources, but did not find anything close to WP:NCORP, and did not find anything to suggest other sources exist. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2021 (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.