Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MicroVision, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

MicroVision, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Company and has never met notability guidelines. After a search - including Lexis Nexis - there are not sources to pass the guidelines for notability. Only two reliable sources can be found in the last 10 years (Wall Street Journal and 9to5Mac). These sources do not meet independence and/or significance guidelines. In addition:
 * Article is a recreation of an article deleted after deletion review for promotional tone/advertising, which has not been improved in 13 years.
 * Article was created by a currently banned user from a subreddit dedicated to promoting this company's stock. (See next item. Article was created before ban, so this information is offered for context only).
 * Company is a penny stock and meme stock that is subject to manipulation. A subreddit dedicated to this company frequently requests positive edits, such as these examples: . The subreddit may use meatpuppets to influence edits.
 * Company has reported zero product revenue in approximately two years, zero revenue in six months, low revenue for years, and zero profit in 30 years. Company is less notable than thousands of small parts suppliers around the world.

Here is a source assess table that shows sources are dependent on company's press releases, reviews, trade publications, blogs, and self-published sources. First nine sources from article and Wall Street Journal included as last available reliable source. Notability depends on multiple reliable secondary sources, which this article lacks. Yammie2009 (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Yammie2009 (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Regretful delete per Yammie's respectful detective work. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The company could be named in a list at the article about meme stocks or the article about Wall Street Bets. Anything more than a mention seems unwarranted.Yammie2009 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I've followed this zero sales, zero revenue, meme stock for several years. MicroVision is a quasi-company, IMO. 71.9.233.226 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Due to sources assessment table. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I'd like to know why this article was taken down in its entirety. The reasoning provided above is very opiniated and incomplete.
 * For instance, you state that the company has no notability. This is directly contradicted by previous Source Assessments made by Yammie2009, which detail multiple reputable sources mentioning the company in various respects. The most offensive one of which is the article created by "Pioneer HUD" mentioning Microvision as being a part provider. The source was checked out as reliable, with news of Microvision providing parts. But the resolution to this source is marked as an unreliable source, stating that Microvision only supplies them parts... Which is what the company does: engineer hardware for various vendors.
 * Other Source Assessments don't make sense given the rest of the landscape within which Microvision operates. For instance, its stated that Microvision has not posted product revenue, which is not true given their last earnings call. Interesting to note that Luminar Technologies has their page up despite have -$450 million dollar revenues for 2023 so far. Another complaint is that the company is often listed under meme stocks, which makes zero sense given that other meme stocks, like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Healthcare, are allowed to have an article discussing their products just fine. The last complaint being that Microvision is a penny stock, which is interesting, seeing as the company's stock has been trading in the $2-$3 range for the entirety of this year. Objectively not a penny stock in that case.
 * The final complaint being that "meatpuppets" influence edits to the Wikipedia page. This is both insulting to new users of the Wikipedia platform, and flies in the face of what the website is supposed to be about: a neutral website where internet users can post and edit pages after review from other internet users.
 * Given these contradictions, I'd like to request that the Microvision page be restored. Any edits that need to be made can be done, but removing the page in its entirety is ridiculous given the flimsy reasoning. Frymando (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2023 (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.