Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finder-Spyder (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Fictional brand. Merge should be selective and only include sourced content. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Finder-Spyder

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Non-notable fictional website without WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. Most of this is referenced to unreliable sources. Once you remove those there isn't anything to write a real article. Jontesta (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated in the nomination, the current sources are not sufficient for establishing notability, as they are all listicles from mostly non-reliable websites. Searching for anything else really turns up nothing in reliable sources - a few more of the similar kind of "trivia" mentions, and that is about it. It looks like the article was previously deleted in 2010 and then recreated several years later, but it does not look like it gained any more notability since the initial deletion at all. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also fine with a Merge to Fictional brand as an WP:ATD as suggested below. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for proper article sources and found a few, but each full article cited Wikipedia as its source like this one: https://mashable.com/article/finder-spyder-investigation

There are good sources for fake brands overall. If anybody wants to improve Fictional brand, the Finder-Spyder content could make more sense within that article. Rjjiii (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Fictional brand in the spirit of WP:AtD. This appears in secondary sources (like this one), and I think it would be a loss if the interested reader would not find this explained on Wikipedia. But I did not see enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Daranios. I am not seeing much outside [1], so stand-alone article has problems withWP:SIGCOV, but yeah, it's totally worth mentioning in fictional brands article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator I still believe in good faith that there is no significant coverage of this subject and it should be deleted. However, if there was a consensus to merge, I would not object. Jontesta (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and excise the appearances list. While merge might be a good idea in theory, there's not really a listing of notable fictional brands into which the one paragraph of reasonably sourced text could go. If someone wants to really create a List of fictional brands (which is just a redirect to the proposed merge target at this point, I would be fine with a merge. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Daranios. I see some sources but it is not enough for a separate article. Archrogue (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2022 (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.