- 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. RL0919 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Visions Electronics[edit]
- Visions Electronics (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)
As written, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Sources are all primary sources. Per my WP:BEFORE procedures, using the article name in both Google quotation mark-enclosed web and news searches, the only non-duplicated web search results were directory listings, job listings, search engine optimization-type pages, and social media. Of the news search results, the only results were mere passing mentions or trivial, hyper-local coverage related to a shopping centre redevelopment plan in which the electronics retailer was a current or proposed tenant or occasional mentions whereby a store was broken into (note: even following WP:SIGCOV, a bank branch can be robbed multiple times and still fail WP:Notability). No evidence of either (a) current or (b) potential notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dmehus: Just a note, as I browse some recent AfDs. I've noticed you keep including "as written". That's going to cause you some trouble at some point, as AfD is supposed to be more or less indifferent to how it's currently written. If it's notable, it doesn't matter how it's currently written (WP:BEFORE and whatnot). If it's written in a promotional/nonsensical way, that's what CSD is for. The only time the current condition of the article is typically relevant is if you're arguing for WP:TNT. None of this is a comment on this nomination in particular, which I haven't even looked into yet. Just a note. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhododendrites: I certainly wasn't advocating for WP:TNT, just trying to strictly enforce WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. I actually picked up on the as written verbiage from @Piotrus: who attached it to AfDs he'd written. My intent was to show that the article, as written, is not notable but that also, in terms of potential sources, it's not notable, too. Hope that makes sense. Doug Mehus (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dmehus and Rhododendrites: Weeeell, if you remove "as written", it doesn't change things at all. After all, if you say "fails GNG", it is assumed "as written". There's WP:BEFORE, but that's why we are here, to see if anyone can find better sources that the nom couldn't, right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:04, 26 October 2019 (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.