Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MizzFIT (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 DELETE. Spinning Spark 01:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MizzFIT

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

This is apparently an article about MizzFIT and not about Bianca Jade. That's just a false veneer trying to hide it's true purpose. But for now I'll pretend. Since this is about MizzFIT lets look at the sources. Passing mentions of the subject. EG The New YorK Post used three times. A Baldwin attends an avent related to MizzFIT, passing mention that is so important that this "encycopedia" article fells it's so important to use it repeatedly. Look at the rest, which provides independent covereage of MizzFIT beyound saying Bianca Jade of MizzFIT. A bunch of pieces where they talk to Jade, they mention Jade or are provided by MizzFIT or Jade (not independent). Stopping pretending, This is just an attempt to backdoor an article about Bianca Jade pretending to be about her website. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. If in doubt, WP:IAR to stop Wi[pipedia from being overtaken by spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of credible sources, what exists has been stretched out beyond reason. No significant coverage about the website or its role in the grander scheme of things. Passing mentions, but no extensive coverage. As this is the third time the page has been created, would salting be appropriate? Mabalu (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2013 (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.