Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyetrust 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. 1'm closing this as dishonestly sourced and unverifiable. Ref 1 is the deliberate misquotation of a title about another company. Ref 3 likewise, and in this case used without even looking at it because the very title says the organization is bankrupt. The other refs are not about the company at all, but about an eye disease & do not mention the company. Further discussion of this is superfluous. Inesperience here is no excuse for this sort of delierate falsehoods.  DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Eyetrust vision

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:COMPANY; self-published sources; no reliable sources found; makes false statements (125 stores in Canada, the United States, Puerto Rico); the reference to the New York Times doesn't mention this company. Moreover, the only truly "notable" item about this one-store optician--that they offer "free valet for all patients"--was left out of the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Even the monster photo of their "head office" is misleading; they occupy one suite on the third floor. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 *  Keep I am a newcomer and in learning phase. I found that people are saying that we have used some false statements. I am ready to make the removal edits for the false statements. I am looking for more online stuff which can establish the notability. I will update them as soon as possible. I would request that the admins should give a chance so that I can improve the article as per wikipedia standards.Drchrycy (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2014 (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.