Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyepartner


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Eyepartner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This and this is about the closest I came to finding any reliable sources about this company, not notable as far as I can tell. Sam Walton (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is essentially an advert for the company's products. I couldn't find any third-party sources that would attest to notability, nor did I find any independent reviews of the products. I did find the company on many complaint boards, however, so they have quite a few vocal unhappy customers. LaMona (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as not only are the primary sources and press releases noticeably the only links, none of this suggests even a minimally better article overall. SwisterTwister   talk  18:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  18:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  18:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  18:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  18:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing but an ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC).
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.It is clearly advert and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as advert masquerading as an article. Most of the sources are primary, only a couple of reliable sources, so fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 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.