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) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muvizu[edit]

Muvizu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional article of non-notable product. A quick google search doesn't come up with any reliable sources. All references (other than the ones that 404) point to their own site. Been tagged for notability for two years. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A google source found five references. ([1][2][3][4][5]) While 3 of them are from the same website and I'm not certain about the reliability or usability of the last one, I believe there are enough references to support a semblence of notability. Pishcal — ♣ 01:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:Pishcal's findings appear to demonstrate notability. --Jpcase (talk) 23:15, 29 June 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.