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]

Keep -- 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]

So far, there isn't anything to merge. The only thing that any of the sources show is that the website exists. There isn't any in-depth information from reliable sources to merge.-- Mike 🗩 18:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth Mike To clarify, the intent of the merge is to incorporate relevant content that I wrote, rather than deleting it entirely. I’m not quite following your rationale here, are you suggesting that if sources don’t provide extensive detail, then the subject itself has no value? Or its just that you are not particularly familiar with this subject? Many articles on Wikipedia, including for example RetroMania Wrestling, which I believe you should know well, have been accepted despite being insignificant and with barely any credible sources. Long story short, I have added merge tag to Material Design page and there is a separate discussion there. If the consensus will be the same as here then proceed with deletion. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm saying that because there are no reliable sources that talk ABOUT Material Design Blog, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I'm also saying that it isn't important enough to be merged, any mention of it in the Material Design page would be WP:UNDUE.

Did you look at the references for RetroMania Wrestling? Paste Magazine has 10 paragraphs dedicated to it. NintendoLife has 15 paragraphs. Forbes (which isn't in the article, but probably should be) has 16 paragraphs. If Material Design Blog had anywhere near this level of coverage, this AFD would be dead in the water. But all of that is beside the point, because WP:OTHERSTUFF is one of the arguments to avoid at AFD. -- Mike 🗩 12:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth MikeIt’s not the first time I’m having discussions with your account in the last 8 years. Seems like at this point you are trying to prove something that doesn’t exist and I must add in a hostile attitude as per usual. A game is different from the game, period. But since you have more boxes on your profile than actual content you have created it seems quite obvious to me that you are the gatekeeper here with your own beliefs confined by Wiki box. Good luck to you, I don’t see any point in engaging in pointless discussions with an editor who believes a random game is somewhat notable. What a clown. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no memory of every interacting with you (did you edit under a different username?). I have no idea what you mean when you state that I am trying to prove something that doesn't exist. What am I trying to prove? I also disagree that I have a hostile attitude, I consider my self to be fairly level-headed. I also don't know what you mean when you state that a game is different from the game. Nor, do I understand when you state that I have more boxes on my profile than content. I have created 20ish articles and have 5 infoboxes. Also, calling someone a clown is probably considered a minor personal attack, you should probably strike it. You shouldn't take this personally, many of us have had articles deleted due to being non-notable. Learn from it. -- Mike 🗩 17:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the sources in the article really show that the blog stands out from other blogs. For example, 13 Sources of Material Design Inspiration lists a bunch of other blogs as well, and so does 24 Amazing Web Design Blogs You Should Follow in 2025!. Based on just those sources, listing Material Design Blog, we'd have to list all the other ones as well. I don't think we can really justify mentioning such a specific blog on the main Material Design page without any sources that actually say it played a role that makes it stand out from all the other blogs talking about Material Design. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. I did more research on the topic and I’ve expanded the article with a broader historical context on Material Design’s early adoption, adding more references beyond just ‘listicle’ mentions. The revised section outlines the landscape of resources available at the time and highlights role in curating real-world applications when practical implementations of Material Design were still developing. The added sources now provide a clearer picture of its relevance within the broader adoption of Material Design principles. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 23:39, 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]

@Jone Rohne Nester, see WP:CRUNCHBASE. Crunchbase cannot be used as a reference, but is fine as an external link. -- Mike 🗩 18:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]