Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlixFlux

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. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FlixFlux

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is outwith my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years (Xandrewx. Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. One would expect the majority of coverage for a torrent website to exist online, so I don't think it's unfair to judge its notability by Google results. This seems like just some random website that never really achieved any prominence outside of an article in TorrentFreak, which I'm not convinced is a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate 13:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never achieved notability in the first place, and they're defunct now. Pax 00:09, 27 April 2015 (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.