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. postdlf (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FindYourFate.com[edit]

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

The only sources provided are "brief [summaries] of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site", which WP:WEBCRIT says are insufficient to establish notability. McGeddon (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my initial suggestion after viewing the article is keep. This article does have some issues, but overall I would say this passes GNG for the simple reason they are highly thought of in the horoscopes industry. This is evident by the number of leading media companies that have mentioned them and the books they've featured in. I do think however we could do with some extra references for verification. Verdict78 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being mentioned within lists of other dozens of items or given a url credit on a page aren't sufficient evidence of notability per WP:WEBCRIT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources required per WP:WEBCRIT. "Featured Books" means a book that links to the website, a rather low criteria for being "featured". IRWolfie- (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. bd2412 T 03:01, 24 September 2013 (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.