Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaFire


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

MediaFire

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence that this meets WP:WEB. The only non-internal reference is a hit analysis website, which is just like the Google or Alexa test, which is not an indicator of notability. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Clearly meets WP:WEB:

And many other reasons why this is notable, I see absolutely no reason to delete this. SF007 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (CNET, PC magazine, PC World, Lifehacker...)
 * The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization: PC magazine " Top 100 Undiscovered Web Sites"


 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:WEB. If you delete this, you might as well delete Miniclip... Don't get any ideas! Tezkag72 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete spam. Spam, spam, spam.  Horrible. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or else show us the "multiple non-trivial published works" needed to establish notability. Biruitorul Talk 23:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep CNET article and PCmag are enough IMO. Not the best notability ever, but meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Two paragraph mentions and a sitemeter hardly qualify as non-trivial coverage. RayAYang (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 07:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Clearly meets WP:WEB, and if Rapidshare is included in Wikipedia, Mediafire should, too; since Mediafire is somewhat growing larger than Rapidshare. And for those saying spam, look again, please identify the parts that are spam. (Rapidshare provides the same functionality with less bandwidth for users, so people are now moving to Mediafire.)-- KelvinHO Wiknerd ( talk ) 07:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're deleting this article, you might as well delete Rapidshare,SendSpace,FileFront,Box.net,YouSendIt,SteekR since their function is the same and some of them are even less notable than Mediafire.
 * And for the WP:WEB points, they have been listed by user:SF007 at the top-- KelvinHO Wiknerd ( talk ) 07:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hobit. Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 31 July 2008 (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.