Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/View, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; new sources have popped up during the discussion. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

View, Inc.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant WP:PROMO. About 3 of the 18 sources fail WP:GNG as well. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep & Permanent protection, View is one of the promising smart glass manufacturer covered by reliable news sources, raised nearly $500 million and has a wide coverage and notable publications. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, notability requires multiple source which it has. The page has been a point of edit war between two groups, who want to claim on the technology and to be as mentioned the founders of the technology. A few example of sources and coverage it has, Forbes (written by forbes staff), CNET, San Jose Mercury News, Fox Business, Silicon Valley Business Journal, Forbes, Fortune, theguardian, phys.org, techcrunch, businessinsider. Over 90 articles on Highbeam (Soladigm previous name of the company).

Only reason, it was marked for deletion as it wasn't referenced properly. Here are the list of patents that view has on Justia. Sundartripathi (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sundartripathi (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.


 * I have to inform you,, that has accused you of having a close connection with View. For this reason, I have tagged your comment. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Scratch that. The user in question is abusing their Talk page while blocked anyway. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, jd22292, I declare I have no connection with View. I was the one who has blocked sock puppets of both DeniseJZ and View. Check Sockpuppet investigations/DeniseJZ/Archive. I have removed the promo content and also added competitor section to stay neutral. When you attack a sock farm, you will be most likely to accused by them. The only goal of DeniseJZ socks, was not to mention that Paul Nguyen has made an exit in 2009 (he also says this on his linkedin), his work failed, by only google anyone can find the details about the history. Found Nguyen's exit info and technology failure on Bizjournals and the Wall Street Journal, I hope this make sense. Also, previous AFD can be reviewed at Articles for deletion/Soladigm. Sundartripathi (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Plenty of sourcing to meet CORPDEPT appears to exist, per the examples listed by Sundartripathi, the sources already in the article, and those highlighted in the past AFD. Not sure WP:BEFORE was followed here. -- ferret (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * keep there has been some blatant gaming going on probably related to the ongoing litigation between the founder and the company. Some of the content was not supported by the sources. But I have fixed it pretty much and it seems keepable.   No telling if the company is going to survive or not; we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2017 (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.