Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visionx


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Visionx

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello - and thank you for your attention to this page. The page was previously proposed for deletion and deleted before I could get a follow-up from the person who proposed it. It was restored with the condition that it would be evaluated and then resubmitted. I am happy to present the 3rd party, re-written content, which is far less sales-oriented and will pose the proper citations. Please have a look at it here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RE95BWDv9-hm-NqkALBXy6-4hj4ei6iX1XU6T7QVli4/edit) and let me know if there is anything else that should be changed. If this content is good to publish, who should publish it? Should I make these changes? Bcvisi2009 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I trimmed the primary company sources and the unsourced claims. A search finds nothing at all in terms of coverage. --- Possibly &#9742; 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nytendoz (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Their software is mentioned in several research papers and books, like this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=wt5qQslgpV0C It appears that the software is notable enough, but I can't infer that the company is notable. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe there is sourcing to establish notability, and I will try to do that during this AfD and come back with a firm k/d. The content that proposes should not be added, as that would be a near automatic G11.  Star   Mississippi  17:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Further comment please note that you don't need to post to mutiple editors' pages, discussion happens here or on the article's Talk page.  Star   Mississippi  17:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Thank you, and I apologize - I'll keep all questions here. I will not post the proposed edits, as suggested. If anyone wants to highlight the objectionable words/phrases in that proposed content, I can make sure our copywriting team removes them when rewriting the content. Or perhaps it would make more sense to write an article about the software itself instead?Bcvisi2009 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails NCORP.-KH-1 (talk)
 * Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. GermanKity (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2021 (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.