Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VGMix (3rd 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. Courcelles 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VGMix

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

Not a notable website see WP:N Polargeo (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VGMix_(3rd_nomination)&action=edit&section=1#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VGMix_(3rd_nomination)&action=edit&section=1#[reply]

Delete. There were concerns about notability even when VGMix was more active four years ago. These concerns were withstood by claims of the website's significance within the community it targets. VGMix activity has steadily decreased since then, and has been negligible for the past several months even before the website entered its current downtime. The past AfD discussions have shown that VGMix does not carry enough historic importance to compensate for its consistent lack of use by and interest from its audience, regardless of cause. At most, some of this article could belong on virt's page if it isn't there already. Johncwillard (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Jake Kaufman Appears to very barely pass WP:WEB 1A with [1] plus the two "mentioned" on the article; notability is not temporary and all that. Although there's simply not much to write about it since it had constant server issues throughout its history and basically died. If I'm wrong on the WP:WEB part, then delete it, as it doesn't really meet anything else. Ryan Norton 18:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as per Johncwillard. scope_creep (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is anyone at VGMix interested in this article? Johncwillard (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2010 (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.