Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visiondirect.co.uk


 * 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. Promotional paid editing means we apply guidelines very strictly. Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Visiondirect.co.uk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP as there is no or little coverage in independent, reliable sources. Iselilja (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * delete obvious WP:PROMO LaMona (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - Promo bollox that belongs elsewhere. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smeldridge's huge improvements - It's most definitely ALOT better than before! (Thanks ). – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  13:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 August 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)  14:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP and clearly promotional  and lacks Reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: A WP:SPA article on a non-notable firm/website. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Also confirming that opinion persists on the revised version of the article: the firm exists, was fined in a court case and relocated offshore: not evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 水 13:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It's been pointed out to me that since the last !vote was cast this article has been heavily re-written; I'm therefore relisting the discussion to allow consensus on the improved version of the page. Yunshui 雲 水 13:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I would first like to state that I am substantial contributor to this article and working on behalf of Visiondirect.co.uk. I re-wrote the article last week on the 3rd of September. The previous article failed WP:PROMO, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. It has been re-written as an encyclopedic article. •User:Smeldridge (talk contribs) 15:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Comment Added more sources to demonstrate notability. •User:Smeldridge (talk contribs) 15:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment from Nominator: The text of the article has been much improved since I nominated it for deletion. I still see a lack of reliable sources, though. By my count, the company is mentioned in independent, reliable sources three times: Twice in 1998 when they were fined for their way of selling contact lenses (they appear to have been the first or among the first to sell online in UK) but sources which only focuses on illegal activity does not give notability per WP:ILLCON, and then once in passing in 2008 along with two other similar sites. The rest of the sources are not what we normally consider independent, reliable sources but homesites or press-releases disguised as journalism (prwire etc.). There may of course be off-line sources we are not aware of, but all in all my impression is that this isn't a company that is covered in reliable media to such an extent that we can write a comprehensive article based on reliable sources without supplementing a lot with non-independent homepages, press-releases etc. So I think it still fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:ORGIND. Iselilja (talk) 20:32, 9 September 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.