Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounded Vision


 * 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. czar 08:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Bounded Vision

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:COMPANY as there are no reliable sources. Greek Legend (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and planned to nominate since of this currently satisfies the notability. SwisterTwister   talk  02:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting one more time, per the nomination being struck as being from a confirmed sock puppet. North America1000 00:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Delete - not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2016 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.