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 keep. Sandstein 21:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenista[edit]

Gardenista (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)

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

I agree with the original prod however, this was paid for spam created several years ago, apparently under the radar and has resulted in citogenesis. There is no true in depth coverage of Gardenista or Remodelista (hence the bundle.) It's all PR puffery, passing mentions or unreliable nonsense. Also see this related AFD Praxidicae (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about paid contributions, however both Remodelista and Gardenista are known names here in the US. Let me see if I can clean up the articles with some real citations and lose the junk. -- EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Remodelista with proper citations, new structure, removed paid spam articles etc. Requesting that deletion notice is removed. Planning to do the same for Gardenista EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I've already revised Remodelista. Will do the same cleanup for Gardenista over the weekend. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gardenista rewrite done. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks like a notable company from the references and coverage. Most importantly, editing is a preferred alternative to deletion, so kudos to EricAhlqvistScott! JUN1U5 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both I find that these are two notable internet publications. They both have multiple RSs. My WP:BEFORE revealed non0trivial secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although this is listed under AfDs for organisations/companies (and it would deffo fail WP:NCORP as the sources fail ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH), the article seems to me to fit more in with WP:WEB which has a much looser adherence and interpretation of the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 1 February 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.