Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material Design Blog

Material Design Blog

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I read all the sources provided in References and couldn't find reliable focused significantly on the website itself; the available sources have only routine coverage; crunchbase is red flag NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As it stands right now, Ref 1 is just a database entry. Refs 2 and 5 are only one sentence. Ref 3 is only a link. Refs 4 and 7 are only two sentences. Refs 8, 9, 10 and 11 are not about the subject. Ref 12 is WP:PRIMARY. I've searched for better sources, but cannot findy any reliable sources that show that this blog is notable. -- Mike 🗩 16:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per source evaluation by @Darth Mike and the fact that as a random blog, it is not particularly likely a detailed evaluation has been done. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect -- Hi everyone! I'm the creator of this wiki page in question. To preserve relevant information I suggest merging the pertinent content from this article into the existing Material Design article. This integration would provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of resources associated with Material Design without necessitating a standalone article. Any feedback on this?Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NiftyyyNofteeeee Thanks for your time and review. Could you clarify what you mean by Crunchbase being a "red flag" in this context? Are you referring to its general reliability as a source on Wikipedia or something specific to this article? Given that Crunchbase has maintained a digital record for over nine years, it would be helpful to understand if there’s a broader discussion needed about its credibility as a reference. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]