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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Android Central (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)

Just another one like The Next Web or YourStory. Made for Promotions by promotions alone and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are several sources in the article but half of them are the subject itself. The rest of the coverage doesn't appear to be in-depth enough to indicate notability in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not the biggest site, but they've gotten enough coverage to be considered at least a bit notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.54.56 (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only getting coverage in few media has become a source to write such article. These articles provide Zero notability or substance for being encyclopedia material Wikipedia is becoming Directory and Press distribution channel for such blog or companies. Serious damage is made to Wikipedia with such presence Where few media coverage makes Wikipedia article. Whole essence of Wikipedia is getting lost with such blatant misuse of Wikipedia Guidelines. Where these are no significance even by Common-Sense thinking. Light2021 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I meant to comment sooner, none of what's listed as apparent sources are both non-PR or actual substance, therefore we cannot simply take into account the mere names of what publication is listed, and the contents themselves are then also simply advertising and republications of it; therefore meaning none of this is convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I'm not seeing any coverage about the site itself; as it stands it's just a promotional blurb. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2016 (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.