Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixudo
Source: 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mixudo (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)
Promotional article about what is essentially a web hosting company with a homegrown CMS. The article appears well-sourced but upon closer inspection some of the claims are not backed up at all. A search did not reveal any substantive third-party coverage or mentions beyond blogs that seem to repeat the same self-generated content on YouTube. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Whilst I can understand your concerns with your findings, I had done similar research, but had concluded the following;
- It is not a requirement for websites using Mixudo to display a 'powered by' slogan, nor any text referring to Mixudo at all. The platform had come to my attention from my Journalist years in New York, via an investment banker.
- Nonetheless, I shall try to obtain further third party references in support of the page as I believe it to be a well founded software, which is, at least, non-commercial.
- Kind regards MarcelBrandon (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I trimmed out the worst of the promotional fluff from the original draft, but now there's not much left. No assertion of notability per WP:GNG, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have found other, very significant sources and added them to the listing, I will continue to source further items and add them if I find them. MarcelBrandon (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Still fails WP:GNGPianoDan (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An SPI that involves the author(s) of this article has been opened. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:FreeRangeFrog has been found on numerous occasions being hasty to add deletion notices and jumping to conclusions. I have, and will remain polite throughout this discussion, but there does seem to be a bias in this users character to 'destroy' efforts of new contributors. MarcelBrandon (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please don't reproduce my signature, it's confusing to other people. I'd suggest you stop worrying about me and go defend yourself against the sockpuppet allegations; or better yet, go source your article so other editors can decide whether or not it merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Apologies, I had mistakenly copied more than just your name. However with all due respect, I didn't come here to become a self-advocate for silly allegations of dishonesty, because I'm not about to attempt to prove a negative. I am indeed only interested in sourcing my article, because I didn't choose to give up my time to help wikipedia by wasting my time on false allegations. MarcelBrandon (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please don't reproduce my signature, it's confusing to other people. I'd suggest you stop worrying about me and go defend yourself against the sockpuppet allegations; or better yet, go source your article so other editors can decide whether or not it merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:FreeRangeFrog has been found on numerous occasions being hasty to add deletion notices and jumping to conclusions. I have, and will remain polite throughout this discussion, but there does seem to be a bias in this users character to 'destroy' efforts of new contributors. MarcelBrandon (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An SPI that involves the author(s) of this article has been opened. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The supposed Caldwell Banker reference leads to a wordpress-based spam board that a WHOIS search shows to have nothing to do with Coldwell Banker. Other references are either simple quotes of press releases or passing mentions of the company. I don't see where anyone anywhere has found this organization to be that noteworthy. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article has a complete lack of reliable sources which actually discuss mixudo. The references are either A) affiliated with it in some way (this includes the http://coldwellbankerbcr.com site mentioned immediately above by Uncle Milty -- the whois matches http://mixudo.com) or B) sites which use mixudo but don't actually talk about. Intentionally or not, this appears to be nothing more than a promotional article for a non-notable CMS. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2012 (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.