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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HitFix[edit]

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

PROD was removed by an SPA. My concerns before were: Fails WP:WEB. Other than this article at the time of the site's launch, I can't find anything which provides significant, independent coverage of the site. Unless some better sources are found, we shouldn't have an article.

Two extra sources have been added, but I still don't think these are sufficient. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few reasons the HitFix article should remain active

Alexa has HitFix ranked 14th among entertainment news sites putting it above other household names in that space. I've added a reference to that list in the article
HitFix is often cited by other reputable news outlets as a source. I've added a few references to the article, but a search for "Hitfix Reported" in Google, will show many more.
I've seen the HitFix article referenced by several other wikipedia pages although I'm not sure how to dig those up.
Two of the HitFix contributors have their own Wikipedia page Dave1279 12:06, 2 July 2012

Additionally 637 pages on Wikipedia reference HitFix http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hitfix&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 Dave1279 10:40, 6 July 2012 — Dave1279 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

None of those are sufficient for us to have an article. As I said before we need "significant, independent coverage" of the site, which there does not seem to be. SmartSE (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are really about hitfix. They are about other things and trivially mention hitfix in passing. Stedrick (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is notable as it contains various good sources. TBran dl ey 01:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But do any of them provide significant coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:46, 27 July 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.