Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Logix

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Logix

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

No evidence that this corporation meets the criteria of WP:ORG. Lots of awards, but in the web design industry, there's always an award being handed out somewhere -- this isn't really a sign of notability. No evidence of any significant coverage in independent sources. What news hits can be found are almost exclusively press releases from the company itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. the content has been re-written so that it is not an advertisement, and reference links have been included that are not press releases. Including articles for business journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkofron4 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources (as of this version) include:
1. Press Release
2. Press Release
3. Advertorial
4. Article written by company's founder
5. Directory listing indicating that Magic Logix develops with Magento
6. Directory listing indicating that Magic Logix is a Web Design firm in Dallas
7. Forum posting by someone calling themselves MagicLogix
8. Article about founder at the Dallas Business Journal indicating local coverage of a local company.

None of these sources indicates notability for this company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the evidence - indeed not notable. Sources are either WP:Primary and self Promotional violating WP:COI and CP:SOAP or they are not non WP:RS 19:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 June 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} 06:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any evidence of notability, mostly looks like self promotion. CodeTheorist (talk) 23:51, 22 June 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.