Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visionx

Visionx

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I trimmed the primary company sources and the unsourced claims. A search finds nothing at all in terms of coverage. --- Possibly ☎ 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - and thank you for your attention to this page. The page was previously proposed for deletion and deleted before I could get a follow-up from the person who proposed it. It was restored with the condition that it would be evaluated and then resubmitted. I am happy to present the 3rd party, re-written content, which is far less sales-oriented and will pose the proper citations. Please have a look at it here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RE95BWDv9-hm-NqkALBXy6-4hj4ei6iX1XU6T7QVli4/edit) and let me know if there is anything else that should be changed. If this content is good to publish, who should publish it? Should I make these changes? Bcvisi2009 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nytendoz (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Their software is mentioned in several research papers and books, like this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=wt5qQslgpV0C It appears that the software is notable enough, but I can't infer that the company is notable. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe there is sourcing to establish notability, and I will try to do that during this AfD and come back with a firm k/d. The content that Bcvisi2009 proposes should not be added, as that would be a near automatic G11. Star Mississippi 17:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Bcvisi2009 please note that you don't need to post to mutiple editors' pages, discussion happens here or on the article's Talk page. Star Mississippi 17:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NCORP.-KH-1 (talk)
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. GermanKity (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]