Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MagicVortex


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

MagicVortex

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Limited coverage, weak delete per WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  19:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, It seems all but two of the sources are dead links and I couldn't find anything else online when I looked. So the company fails WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep with some heavy updating. It seems to have been big enough in its prime to make it to some pretty mainstream print magazines. Just swap everything to past tense. Or do we just remove every article for defunct web services now because the links died? --~ ฅ(ↀωↀ&#61;) neko-channyan 22:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends. If the vast majority of the links are dead and there are no archived copies or the information can't be supported by newer ones I'd say yes. The core of Wikipedia is verifiability of article content and that can't be done if every source in the article is a dead link with other way to confirm what's in the article. There's also zero way to determine if the sources where reliable or not when they where originally used as references. Which is a large part of this AfD. Like with ref 7, Sage Analytic, it seems like it was a bad ref to start with. While we already know an Alexa ranking can't be used for notability anyway even if it wasn't a dead link. I'm not much for creating a bunch of permanent stubs either. Basic information is better stored in Wikidata at this point IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Delete per nom. I did not find any significant coverage. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I find only a few one-paragraph product reviews in trade magazines. Nothing that meets basic notability threshold: in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources. Glendoremus (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * DELETE*** - the content seems to be promotional in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice to future recreation if more substantial (and accessible) coverage arises in the future. BD2412  T 00:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.