Deletion of Comparison of sites using the LiveJournal codebase

Comment: I used to maintain this but I have come to the opinion that it's mostly . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)