Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Klostermankl/CareFlash


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Many-see below. — xaosflux  Talk  23:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Klostermankl/CareFlash
Enough time to build after speedy, canvasing for links, and using Wikipedia for COI Website on SPA account. Wikipedia ia not a storage server. If after more than a month the editor has not endavered to build the article with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS it needs to go. speedy delete Igor Berger (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: There is currently a DRV here. I'd suggest waiting for the outcome there.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; deleting this at the moment would derail the DRV. A decision on the page should be deferred until the DRV has been closed. BlueValour (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

- This matter is stayed pending DRV closure. If DRV results in the article remaining deleted from the mainspace, re-list this discussion at the top of the page. Discussion should not be finally closed until 5 days after re-opening but should be archived with 10 April 2008 archives.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: DRV has been closed as "keep deleted" --Enric Naval (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not know what all this means. What is DRV (deletion review?). Is it likely that this page will be deleted? If so, what can I do? Thanks, Klostermankl (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. I am just starting and learning about wikipedia. This is not my full-time job, so I may not be as quick to comply or understand, but please don't take that into consideration when reviewing the page for deletion. Also, I've had trouble with the pictures... and have sent in an approval, but am still not sure if they are ok under a copyright. Additionally, I do not work for CareFlash and am not the CEO. I think this is a great resource for sick individuals and caregivers and would like to help aware others of this resource. Thanks for your advice and constructive criticisms. Klostermankl (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deletion Review of the article closed as "keep deleted", the matter of whether the draft in userspace may remain or should be deleted is now ripe for discussion here.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - storage of article on non-notable website; the links are weak (and horribly malformatted). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now (Per DGG's comment, there *might* be some notability on the cancer hospital thing, and DGG says that he's going to help the author to improve the article) Delete Looking at sources, only this 2007 history on Houston Business Journal is somewhat notable, and it's only one agreement with one hospital to use their product. In isolation, this does not establish notability except to a local level. The rest are press releases, that don't count per WP:SELF self published since their wording is not neutral at all (and full of buzzwords too) "This cutting edge alliance empowers patients (...)with the most credible specialists in the sector (...)in the rich, focused circumstances that they are dealing with at that minute of their lives(...) the most comprehensive library of healthcare graphics and animations anywhere in the world.(...)world-class 3-D quality and accuracy(...) delivering unprecedented, world-class, advocacy and education(...)provides a common place on the Internet(...)3D healthcare animations on hundreds of disorders, procedures and anatomical functions, all produced with world-class quality and accuracy," . The rest of sources are passing mentions that don't establish notability. It fails WP:CORP notability per size and impact. Also, appearing on lists of web 2.0 companies looks like "trivial coverage" on WP:CORP. The author has actually made some improvements, but unfortunately for him they don't really address the concerns at DRV, like written as advertising and notability. I assert that the article can't describe notable feats of this company on neutral tone but the article doesn't currently have any such feat, let alone covered with secondary sources. The author has had plenty time to provide those sources, and has only produced regurgitals of press releases and trivial coverage. I suggest becoming more famous and then trying again. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see one thing additional to that--the page for the MD Anderson Childrens Hospital This is a cancer center of the highest possible reputation & if they are partners with that hospital they might in fact be notable.  So I think an article could possibly be written. Leave it there, & I'll help the author. I'm going to now remove some excess as a preliminary. DGG (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the help very much. I had a list of alliance partners earlier with their repective links, but it was suggested that I delete this section, so I did. Could these alliances to notable foundations and companies provide notability? I'm also wondering why other companies that do a similar thing have pages on here that sound much more like advertising and they are ok. Caringbridge is one of them. Should some of the links be deleted b/c they aren't notable. If so, that's no problem. I thought the more the better, but I must be wrong. I appreciate all of the help. By they way I'm a female... :) Regards, Klostermankl (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The link might be helpful. [Caringbridge] Klostermankl (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think we should remove pages like this until there has been a full chance to improve them. this is not a abusive use for advertising, but a genuine attempt to build an article.DGG (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Since it doesn't seem like the page is being used for advertising, and there seems to be some reasonable potential for it to become article space content. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone help me with the pictures... I don't know what else I need to do to have them post to the site... I've sent the email with permission to the correct wikipedia group. I appreciate it. Klostermankl (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.