Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vistek


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Vistek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined PROD. Original reasoning was: "Non-notable local retailer. Search of GNews (and GNews archives) and GBooks turned up no reliable sources. Also checked Globe and Mail archives and the best available were mere mentions in "gifts to get your (whoever) for Christmas and where to find them!" articles."

Some sources were added after the PROD was declined, but I don't believe they're enough to pass WP:NCORP.

1, 2, 3, and 5 are business listings, with 2 not even listing Vistek anymore.

On the surface, 4 looks like a nice big chewy article in The Canadian Business Journal, but if you click the big red button that says "View Brochure", you will find that all of the text comes verbatim from a Vistek brochure, rendering it worthless as a source.

We can't use the company's own archives to support a claim of notability, for obvious reasons, so 6 is out.

7 is actually a great source (access here via HighBeam if you have it), but on its own it isn't enough to support keeping the article.

8 is the company's own website, and 9 is a press release distributed by MarketWire; both are not independent and can't be used to support notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 14:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 14:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 14:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

__________

Thanks for looking through the references. Some of them of course, are just from the company, so those don't count, but I was surprised about Marketwire and the Canadian Journal (of course, now that I read it-- the article is a brochure, I see). Will see if there are more significant sources available. The article, "How Pro Can You Go?" from the PMA Magazine describes the early history of Vistek. And since the article was written 10 years ago, Vistek is now just over 40 years old. It has 5 stores across Canada (it is not a single location) and has been a direct competitor to Henry's (electronics retailer) throughout the years. The one bit of controversy might be when the President of Vistek (Silverstein) bought out the business partner, George Brookman as mentioned in this article (news and notes section). http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/around-town-june-5-dave-sclanders But a further source of information for that has not been found yet. I do not think the article has been written as an Advertisement, but as a proper encyclopedia article. There is news coverage of the trade show that Vistek independently has run for the past 8 years (from 2010 to present), which is ProFusion. Does the significant coverage of the ProFusion Trade show count towards notability? Vistek is the sole organization running the trade show. If so, there is more than can be written and referenced about this trade show, although it may warrant it's own page.

I will add more sources to the page as time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truem (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying the article was written as an advertisement, so it's interesting that you're bringing that up apropos of nothing. What I do think is that the company, based on the coverage, is simply not notable by our standards. Merely existing, even for a long time, does not automatically confer notability. The article in the Calgary Herald barely mentions Vistek except for a small paragraph at the bottom, so it's not a good source for confirming notability.
 * Notability isn't really inherited, so I would argue that coverage of the trade show indicates its notability, but unless Vistek gets discussed in that coverage somewhere, it doesn't really say much about Vistek's notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * comment I think it's a problem with Canadian company's that they do not receive much press other than Canada and therefore, they seem less notable but it doesn't mean they are not notable within the Canadian region. If the criteria is to only allow companies that are notable within US then it's not notable but if we should keep region in consideration than it's notable and should be kept. Mia Watson (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , this isn't about regionalism, or only allowing American companies. It's about being notable by our criteria for notability, which generally requires there to be some independent evidence that the company is notable. I did fairly extensive searches (including, as noted above, the archives of the Globe and Mail, Canada's newspaper of record) and found almost no press coverage of the company, even in Canada. Therefore, by our standards (both in general and for businesses), there is no evidence that the company is notable, so we have no reason to keep the article. The best way for you to prove me wrong would be to find reliable sources that discuss the company in-depth, which would be solid evidence of notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Striker force Talk 20:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The tone and content of the article are entirely promotional and fails WP:SPIP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, being run-of-the-mill company profiles or interviews/quotations or business announcements, such references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 23:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2018 (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.