Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of sites using the LiveJournal codebase

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 and redirect to LiveJournal. Consensus is to delete the content as it is OR, creating redirect over top to preserve links. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of sites using the LiveJournal codebase

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

Aside from two entries, LiveJournal and Dreamwidth the rest are all external links and otherwise not notable. WP:NOTDIR WP:LINKFARM CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:NOT on so many levels (linkfarm, directory, guide). Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I used to maintain this but I have come to the opinion that it's mostly WP:OR. The Nussbaum NYT and McCullagh CNET sources are reliable and are about the phenomenon described here, of other sites being clones of LiveJournal and being attractive to users who have left LiveJournal. But they don't go into any depth about this sort of feature comparison. There's already a paragraph about this on the LiveJournal article and we don't have the sourcing to go into more depth in a separate article. It would be good to provide sourced information about a phenomenon that should become apparent to anyone looking at the article in its current state: most of these clones don't last long, and even the longer-lasting ones are vulnerable to their founders losing interest or running out of operating budget. But a feature comparison table, sourced primarily to the clones themselves (and in most cases to deadlinks from dead clones) isn't the right way to say that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LiveJournal, neutral on it being a delete+redirect. Some of the redirects to this page (such as DeadJournal should point somewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:44, 20 May 2018 (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.