Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ViSalus


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ViSalus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:CORP. Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are the sources being discussed on the talk page:

 Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 11:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * www.directsellingnews.com/index.php/search/ - Search for ViSalus picks up several hits. This is a trade magazine - it is RS, but not for notability purposes.
 * I'm going to repost what another editor wrote to you on the Visalus Talk page with respect to WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH:
 * "Perhaps you should read the entire article of WP:ORG, such as Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying mere trivial coverage, such as: … • brief announcements of merges or sales or part of the business … • quotations from an organization’s personnel as story sources, or • passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.. It then goes on to the Audience portion to state … attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, [ such as all your mentions of direct marketing trade magazines ] is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary. It then continues on beyond that to Independence of sources, saying A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor [ like hulk-hogan who mentions in an interview about other things that he’s selling this company’s products (the first Forbes article) ]  Also see: "No inherited notability") have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.  The fact that you keep finding situations where the guy that owns the company (or used to own the company that he’s trying to sell), keeps mentioning that he works there while doing a piece to try to sell his book (the other Forbes article), or that people selling the company’s products keep saying the name once or twice in an interview about them, is specifically what these sections say does not qualify as notability."
 * Also note that I just posted a comment about one of the latest sources you added above (the blog post on Bigthink.com, by un unnamed author, which turns out to be connected with the CEO of Vislaus). Ineligible sources like this should not be offered up in a discussion about notability. Perhaps you can go back through the source list you provided and prune it so that it contains only sources that qualify and are worthy of further discussion. It look as though most of these sources should be excluded based on WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's how I would grade the sources above:


 * www.directsellingnews.com/index.php/search/ (Leef prefaced that this is ineligible for the purpose of establishing notability...so why bother even listing it?)
 * (Should be excluded on the basis of WP:ORG – i.e. trivial mention of a merger or acquisition)
 * (this one is arguable; says very little about the company and reads like a press release)
 * (Should be excluded on the basis of WP:ORG – i.e. passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization)
 * (borderline; a small local paper with limited reach; provides no details about company)
 * (Should be excluded on the basis of WP:ORG – i.e. passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization)
 * (Ineligible -- blog was written by an unnamed author and is non-independent; Visalus CEO is a reviewer).
 * (Should be excluded on the basis of WP:ORG – i.e. passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization)
 * (Ineligible -- blog was written by an unnamed author and is non-independent; Visalus CEO is a reviewer).


 * Further discussion of sources in the notability debate should be limited to the 4 above that passed a preliminary sniff test. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pretty much agree with the discussion of sources directly above. I see no sources about the company here which pass WP:IRS. Not impressed with passing WP:CORP. Unusual discussion, which has run over a month with no !votes. BusterD (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. For reasons outlined above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Procedural relisting as the AfD did not appear in its original log.
 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  —  Baseball   Watcher  23:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —  Baseball   Watcher  23:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, ditto and etcetera. Giving free publicity to a MLM is just not right. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 6 October 2011 (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.