Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POPxo

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POPxo

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

Non-notable website that's possible a copyvio, fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm Shad in Net 01:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet (talk • contribs)

Keep Not sure why this is been considered for deletion. website is notable and has been covered over various top notch publications..check https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=popxo&tbm=nws Andrewjohn39 — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC) — Andrewjohn39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, at least with respect to the notability issue. I see significant coverage in reliable sources that are cited. That said, if the copyright violation concerns are proven out, the article may need a substantial overhaul—but that would be an indication to overhaul and start an article with free text, not to delete it outright. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of lines were copied, and I removed them. Mainly I put this up due to copyright concerns, which I couldn't check at the time (since copyvio wasn't working). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
seems you are confused Joseph2302, in your first comment, you said that deletion notice was because website was not notable and now you are saying that it was because of copyright concerns :) make up your mind man!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjohn39 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No my first comments questions notability and copyvio- copyvio was the main reason. It's not a copyvio anymore though. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable enough. Have been mentioned on sites like Forbes so should stay here!! 121.244.131.238 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)— 121.244.131.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possible wp:sock going on. Account User:Andrewjohn39 is !voting keep on a series of articles created by COI editor User:BiH, but has not otherwise an active editor. The AfDs are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planview‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KartRocket ‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PaGaLGuY ‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POPxo ‎LaMona (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources in article. They add up to demonstrate sufficient coverage in trustworthy publications, and considering the sometimes quite gushing nature of Indian journalism, are actually comparatively low key and almost neutral in their writing style. Seems to pass notability. Mabalu (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources seem to be fine, even if the article is a little bare-boned. Looking at their Facebook page, they genuinely seem to be very popular and active (812,000 likes, with their posts receiving lot more of shares/comments than I'd expect for a false website). --Prosperosity (talk) 06:39, 11 July 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.