Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CVISION Technologies, Inc.


 * 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. Looks like notabilityhasnt rwally been established to anyone's satisfaction Spartaz Humbug! 19:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

CVISION Technologies, Inc.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to fail WP:CORP because of insufficient references. I'm on the fence with this one, but I can't seem to get through the press releases and copies of one review. Only the PlanetPDF review seems non-trivial and independent; we need at least one more, but I've exhausted my search. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've skipped the procedural prod step because the same author recreated the article, suggesting the prod would fail immediately. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your notability concerns regarding this page. People in the document automation industry, like myself, recognize the notability of CVISION's contributions to the field, but it is difficult to find non-trivial and independently published references. I have included information about an important US patent held by CVISION; does this help? I would welcome anyone's feedback, as well as contributions to the page. Mvcfalcon (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep The adobe thing seems to be pretty notable to me, considering their protcols are in the software It seems to be one the few notable OCR software packages out there as well. The article needs work. I may be willing to go with a merge of some sort but i think the artuicle is slavageable with a lil trimming and a few more refs Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, promotional, Google news hits are press releases, wedding announcements, and mere mentions. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Don't know, even after a little research. Seems like they have cpability, but notability? Anyone dig the figures for the company? Rich Farmbrough, 16:44, 19 August 2009 (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.