Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calfix

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calfix

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

Article was speedily deleted via CSD under the criterion A7. The article was recreated with no comment on why. I can't find any indication of notability or significant coverage. I'm taking it to AfD to decide. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 12:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I restored the talk page, since there was a smidgen of discussion there. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Don't delete I have no connection with the subject of either Reid Jackson or Calfix, but rather a connection with one of the media outlets that has been talking about him (Social Tech Pop- you can Google us, we're not just some obscure blogger). I believe this to be an interesting story and thought that it belongs on Wikipedia. Delete both articles if you want, I think they are significant and have had more than enough press coverage to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.58.2 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The contributing editor has shown that he's more than willing to continue re-creating the article. I hate to bite the newbie, but this guy has been warned about his behavior and doesn't seem to want to listen. Considering that all of his edits have been to add Calfix or Reid Jackson related articles/edits to Wikipedia, it's fairly clear that this is a promotional account.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no indications of notability, nothing but continued attempts to add spam/promotional content. We should nuke it from orbit to be sure. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The editor continues to ignore all feedback and spam promotional content on his related interests. The company/website is a non-notable one created by a teen who appears to be attempting to promote it using wikipedia without any reliable secondary sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete- This website has over 100,000 users. It is clearly relevant and belongs on Wikipedia. Someone should expand on it, not delete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraellevitt (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — Yisraellevitt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - SPA !votes on here appear to be related per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnlowenstein. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fine, delete it all. It has masses of press over here, and you guys will be missing an important page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraellevitt (talk • contribs) 17:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't mean this to come out as rude, but if the company and person are the focus of a lot of press then you need to put that in the article. Just be aware that anything that is released from the company or anyone affiliated with it (such as a press release) is not seen as anything other than a primary source and cannot show notability. Also, the coverage must be in depth and must focus on the company. If it's more about famous relatives/parents of the person who runs the company or is only a brief mention, then it's only considered a trivial source and cannot show notability. Blogs cannot show notability unless they're by an absolute authority or notable person. As far as the number of users go, it doesn't matter how many users are on it. That sort of thing is irrelevant. It makes it more likely to get publicity, but that in itself doesn't show notability. Neither does the fact that the person running the company is related to someone seen as notable on Wikipedia, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Just be aware that you get more help by asking nicely for help and supplying sources on the articles' talk pages than you do stomping your feet and saying "so there!" Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 17 March 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.