Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid Jackson (entrepreneur)

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Jackson (entrepreneur)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The article was PRODed for the lack of significant coverage from reliable souces. The PROD was removed by the creator (which also removed maintenance tags, which I restored) of the page. Renominating to AfD for the same concern. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't delete~~ - Furthermore, how can you call Social Tech Pop an unreliable reference?! It is 80,000 on Alexa rankings and has a Google sponsored WOT reliability rating of very good- 80%. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.185.167 (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — 109.157.185.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't delete~~ - Look he is clearly involved with a lot of notable articles, Calfix, Teenage Republicans and Henry and Stacey Jackson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.185.167 (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — 109.157.185.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Calfix was speedied before under A7. It was recreated, and has been in majority edited by you. I nominated it to an AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calfix.---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 12:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not delete~~ - All sources have been verified. I tried to upload a further source (interview of Reid Jackson (entrepreneur) on Colourful Radio but don't know how. Help? Here is a link to his interview f.cl.ly/items/2x353r3s3u3B1h1A2x2b/Breakfast%20with%20Bonsu%20and%20Juju.m4a— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.185.167 (talk) 08:31, March 17, 2012‎ EST— 109.157.185.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to locate secondary reliable sources to establish notability. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON created by a WP:COI editor who also removed the PROD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about a teenager who has not received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The political "position" he holds is also non-notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just barely over the like from A7 but not by much --Guerillero | My Talk 06:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've stricken the multiple comments by the same IP. Just to let you know, you can only really specify "delete" or "don't delete" once. You can continue your argument, but don't keep putting "don't delete" at the beginning. Just put "comment" down.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 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) Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page is relevant. If you feel like it can be expanded on, feel free. There is more than enough coverage of this elsewhere on the internet. I have removed the 'consider for deletion' tag, you can keep the others if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.58.2 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Maybe someday, maybe not. This one has all the hallmarks of self-bio. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said, not a self-bio. I am in no way affiliated with Jackson. Passes GNG- [2] is a reliable source and there is a full article about him referenced here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.58.2 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well... the only problem is that it's only a blog. It's a very nicely laid out one, but it's still a blog and blogs are rarely considered to be reliable sources that show notability. You have to be considered an absolute authority or be a notable person to have the blog considered reliable. This means that you're quoted by books, news articles, and scholars. Being a popular blog does not equal to being a reliable source per Wikipedia. Here's the rundown of the sources on the article:

[3] This is to a random site that appears to be more of a forum where anyone can post an article. It also doesn't help that it's purely a press release... the same press release that's posted in link number 2.
[4] This is the same as the first link. Press releases are NEVER considered to be anything that could show notability since it's released by the company/Jackson themselves. No matter how many copies you post of the same press release, it won't show notability. (And even if it wasn't a press release, posting multiple copies of the same article will not give the article extra notability. It'll just make it look that much sketchier.) It's considered to be a primary sources and primary sources can only be used if there's multiple independent and reliable sources to show notability, which there aren't.
[5] See above. It's a pretty blog but it's not what Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. Even if it was, one source does not show notability. Considering that the blog has only been around since 2010, it's unlikely that they've managed to get to where they'd be considered a reliable source. If you want to see if it is, feel free to ask on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - Look, if you insist that it's not okay, then go ahead and delete it. Just don't ban it from being edited again because more press will come out about this guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraellevitt (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets close this as Delete. And if the topic becomes notable, then restore or rewrite the article.---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found out about this from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. He does not seem like a fringe personality, but he's not yet all that notable. He might be in a few years time! --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Maybe we don't delete~~ - I also got here from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. I know I'm new around here, just trying to help out, BUT I think we leave this page alone and see if it develops. I mean, he seems to be involved with some notable things. Surely that makes him notable? I mean, even without the CalFix stuff, just the Teenage Republicans ambassadorship should make him notable enough. Right? Wrattenka (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — Wrattenka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to indicate any achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginal figure of no genuine notability; fails to meet any of our specialized or general notability standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All comments by socks now marked as such, bolded opinions struck, see SPI case page. Closing admin may weigh them as is felt appropriate. Amalthea 12:32, 20 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.