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 keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glasses Direct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems a Soap for glasses direct - content is completely written in advertisement style. Amit (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article appears notable. It appears it can be salvaged. Citrusbowler (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Weak delete - do you mean the subject appears to be notable? If so, I have to disagree. There are a few news articles about the company's fights with other companies, but the rest seems to be sourced from the company's website and at least one blog that doesn't even mention the subject. Having done a search of my own, I couldn't find much by way of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The sources attached to the article were horrible and some links weren't even the articles they claimed to be. I've removed a couple of deadlinks and a few that went nowhere or to articles that had nothing to do with the subject. I'd like to think they were mistakes rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, but they are not worth keeping there either way. Without more in depth coverage, I can't see how the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. More than willing to be convinced, so please post anything you can find. Stalwart111 02:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And ChrisGualtieri has now done exactly that, sufficiently enough to demonstrate there are sources out there that could be used to replace the inadequate ones currently used in the article. Many of them still seem to be about the entrepreneur that owns the company, rather than the company itself, but in amongst that there is enough to convince me. Just. Have changed my note. Stalwart111 05:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete because I doubt it is a notable company. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If WP:BEFORE had been checked the news section on Google turns up 5 years worth of RSes, including interviews. From the Independent.[1] to Skynews [2] and even coverage of its award as a startup.[3] It meets GNG because of these sources. While they may not be cited right now, they can easily be included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.