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 no consensus. and I don't think another relist will bring one about. Star Mississippi 01:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Map[edit]

Uniform Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly non-notable, could not find any reliable sources in English or Japanese. — Berrely • TalkContribs 18:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reviewed the article and did not find it to have used promotional wording. Please provide information about how the article is promotional so I can address this through editing. Cunard (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources only contain trivial mentions that aren't significant coverage, and aren't the main subject of a source. Just because it has been mentioned in articles, usually covering a different subject, doesn't mean it's notable. — Berrely • TalkContribs 16:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the "Additional sources (less significant coverage)" section provide less significant coverage about Uniform Map. The first six sources I listed provide significant coverage about Uniform Map as demonstrated by the quotes. Several of the articles are specifically about Uniform Map only and do not cover a different subject.

Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria says:

Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations
The sources I provided demonstrate Uniform Map is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself".

Cunard (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion of Cunard's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try this again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a source that discusses how a dude got into collecting school uniforms is an in-depth significant coverage about the subject, right. I could be totally off here, but the last time I checked the article isn't about school uniform collecting. Let alone the app developers journey as a collector of them. Make an article about those subjects if you think they are notable, but neither uniform collector or the app developer is what this is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses information about the creator's uniform collecting in the context of why the creator founded the website and how many uniforms were on the website in the first day of launch. This contributes to the source providing significant coverage about the website's origins and history. Cunard (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does the article do that? Literally all it does is name drop the app in the beginning and then discusses the dudes collection. Nowhere in the article from what I can tell does it connect his collection to how many were on the website on day launch day. Let alone does it give any history of the website's origins or whatever. significant or otherwise. Sure, the dude started it because he likes school uniforms, but that's literally all it says and there's nothing significant about that. Either way, I'd love to see a website that was created by someone who didn't have an interest in the subject. "I started bears.com because I like bears. Now let me tell you a story about why I think bears are the greatest animal ever." is the epitome of trivial, non-significant coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2022 (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.