Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OnFaith

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. ✗plicit 23:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OnFaith

[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)

Website that does not claim or show any independent notability or coverage. Website currently does not load. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The WaPo, CNA and Austin American-Statesman coverage would all generally qualify as WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS, and NCORP does not have a WP:SUSTAINED requirement (unlike WP:NEVENTS or WP:NPRODUCT). However, all of these sources were published in a blitz of coverage around OnFaith's launch and I don't see any continuing coverage. As a flash in the pan company without any apparent lasting coverage beyond its launch, I'd lean delete, but I think a letter-of-the-law application of NCORP would allow a keep !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This seems like a start up that got a little bit of funding but never really got going, and I suspect part of the reason it got a blitz of media coverage is that the idea of tech products centred around religion is still just a bit of a novelty to most people. I think Dclemens1971 is probably right that the coverage might strictly speaking be enough to pass WP:NCORP, but so much of it is focused on the idea rather than on the company that I'm not sure it really passes the spirit of NCORP. For instance, I can't find a single source covering the fact that the company rebranded or the fact that it shut down, or any sources about its actual operations or userbase. MCE89 (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: going to make my comment above an official !vote to help build the consensus here, although I'd understand if other editors wanted to support keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 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.