Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mix.com

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mix.com

[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)

Not seeing how this can possibly pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable website/platform failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources. None of the sources in the article come close to WP:GNG requirements. Some are primary, some are tiny mention, some are just directory/stat entries. None of the content is attributable to secondary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, none of the sources in the article are sufficient for GNG - the only ones which give any serious discussion of the website are written by one of its founders. My own research turned up this and this (along with a few blog results). The first looks like it might be a reliable source and it does discuss the website in reasonable detail; the latter is not much more than a news release. A few more sources like the first one I linked would be sufficient but all I can find is that one. This may well become notable in the future, but it isn't yet. WJ94 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That "article" looks like typical churnalism: absolutely no content that cannot be gotten from press releases or website's info pages. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:00, 4 November 2019 (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.