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. A roughl consensus of the participants argued the topic reached GNG, although a strong policy-based view was made for deletion as well. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colourlovers[edit]

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

Unimportant social website with no evidence for notability and very little purpose altogether. Previous Afd in 2012, with no consensus-- the keep argument was apparently based on webby awards, which turned out to be webby nominations, which are not significant for notability . The TIME material is mere inclusion on a list, not substantial coverage. Everything else is a press release or the equivalent. The only thing added since then is Alexa rank, which we never accept as indicating notability . DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't get it, either, but it's got substantial coverage, including a placement in TIME's Top 50 Websites. The Webby Award nominations have also instigated coverage from reliable sources, such as The Oregonian. I never would have thought it possible that a social networking site about color would be notable, and I still have some trouble accepting that it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the Time listing. Based on the material there, there is no plausible reason given why they thought it significant--I can only assume it must have been as a curiosity. That doesn't mean it's notable for an encyclopedia. Local news articles do nto normally support the notability of a local company--they aren't sufficiently discriminating. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am female, and have talked about this website with women friends in Second Life. I visited the website in the past, during 2011. It is indistinguishable from many other similar websites, other than its name. There's lots of spam, not much other content, and I would not call it a blogging platform! At one time, maybe 3 or 4 years ago, it was a functional social network for sharing pattern swatches, but that was brief and is no longer true.--FeralOink (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in TIME was in 2007 only. It was their first year if doing web awards. Look at the other websites on that list, e.g. HypeBeast, iliketotallyloveit, LookyBook, ProFootballChat, Mobaganda, Reverse Cowgirl(?!), parked domains, although I do see Wikitravel, with a screen shot! That was one of their only decent picks.--FeralOink (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, because this list of articles via TechCrunch gives me reason to believe there's something there for WP:N. Being a social media professional....nothing surprises me anymore. (sigh) GRUcrule (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colors, color combinations, and color patterns are obviously important to artists, architects, interior designers, craftsfolk, and people who dress themselves in the morning; it make senses to me that such a site could attract passionate members. The TechCrunch articles, and the Time, Webby, and Oregonian sources all contribute to notability; there is enough depth for the topic to pass WP:GNG. The article is a bit promotional, but the problems are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 2 April 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.