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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chatbotfriends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Only google hits were this article, the website, a reddit thread, etc. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 22:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Like the nominator, I can't find anything useful at all. I checked PC World, PC Magazine, Wired, CNET, etc. Usually, websites like this at least get a trivial mention in articles that they write about the topic. As far as I can tell, no journalists have ever recommended it or even commented on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (perhaps even speedily A7) non-notable website, fails WP:WEB.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting Wikipedia rules, by far. DreamGuy (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above reasons. GabeIglesia (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NJP - no evidence of notability fails gng. –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 4 December 2015 (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.