Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duolicious

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duolicious

[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)

Fails WP:GNG/WP:SOFT. There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Citations are primary, self-published or user-generated and dont establish notability per WP:RS and WP:UGC. LvivLark (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LvivLark (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Though these are not golden sources, there's enough here to produce a reasonably well-sourced article. ~Kvng (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources noted by Kvng are unreliable. technowize.com is a personal blog where every piece is written by the same author. Know Your Meme is WP:KNOWYOURMEME. eBaum's World is just as bad. Only Mashable is potentially usable. With just a single okay source, we can't have an article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- I agree the Mashable source is usable.
- WP:KNOWYOURMEME refers to user-generated articles. Know Your Meme does have a user-generated article about Duolicious (the one linked by Kvng), but it also has a staff-written editorial. [5] [6] The AfD cites the staff-written one, which also seems usable to me.
Overlook1209 (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even their staff entries have dubious reliability as noted in this discussion. Now we have two low- to mid-quality sources (WP:MASHABLE is usable but not a great source). I still don't think that's enough. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sensibly, the consensus in that discussion is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and that while KYM doesn't meet WP:RELIABILITY to support serious allegations against living people, KYM's staff-written articles can be reliable enough in some contexts. For non-controversial claims about an app noted for its associated with 4chan, KYM seems like an acceptable source IMHO, especially when combined with some of the others. Overlook1209 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 4 October 2025 (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.