Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Videojuicer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. LFaraone 01:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Videojuicer (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)
Contested prod. Video platform with no clear evidence of notability. The original prod rationale also mentioned a lack of sources. Although some were added, all but one of them make no mention of this platform, and the one that does only makes a passing mention. - Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: I am surprised at the total lack of participation for 4 straight weeks in this AfD. Perhaps WP:SOFTDELETE would apply here? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. The only source that seems to give substantial coverage to the topic is the Telegraph one [1], but that is largely just giving one of the founders a lot of gab time without actually explaining why the company has earned notability. The rest of the sources, as already mentioned, either fail to mention the company at all, or only mention it in passing. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 6 June 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.