Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirror.co


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Mirror.co

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small startup company; with perhaps one exception, all of the references are either press releases, constitute trivial coverage, or are from non-reliable sources. Appears to be some WP:COI issues from single purpose accounts going on as well. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not delete - The number of sources, including New York Post, Men's Health and Thrillist, over the course of a few months, indicate a growth in popularity and thus notability of this new web technology. - Dmattio —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)  — Dmattio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: While I probably agree that the NY Post and Men's Health sources are notable enough for a Keep, I think that the growth in popularity, unless notable itself, isn't as important as the overall notability. Not sure if your argument was meant to say, "this technology will grow to be popular enough to be notable in the future" or "this technology has grown enough to be popular". If it's the former, then I think the argument is invalid. If it's the latter, then I think it's a valid argument. 0x0077BE (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep- The concerns raised here refer more to the minority than the majority of sources used for this page. New York Post, Social Times, and Men's Health are notable news outlets with significant followings and don't in my opinion constitute trivial coverage. Moreover, Yahoo had also chosen to pickup this story along the way. There's more strength than weakness in the sources cited here. It would appear that deletion would be a hasty decision at this juncture as the notability of the topic discussed within its page and on its site seems to be moving forward. - MikeGurock (talk) 9:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — MikeGurock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The Yahoo! link, as I alluded to in the nomination, is just a PRWeb (public relations) release, which means nothing in terms of notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment More sources have written about Mirror.co in Huffington Post, Mashable, and the Venture Beat in the past week, all notable publications. The Yahoo link may leave something to be desired but the other sources on the page strike me as relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.45.250 (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Hey  MBisanz  Appreciate you keeping this discussion going as I feel this page and topic has garnered requisite coverage at this juncture to stave off deletion but even more so towards full on inclusion within the Wikipedia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeGurock (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * delete Not a notable company. --Shorthate (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2012 (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.