Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vision critical

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vision critical

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

Spammy article about non notable company, started by an admitted acquaintance of the company CEO WuhWuzDat 16:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable is defined here: WP:NOTABILITY (for companies - here: WP:ORG). It is a job of article writer to provide reliable 3rd-party references to establish notability. Ipsign (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article is rather small, and fails to say how it's notable in the article, but it could be improved and kept. If nobody improves it, or attempts to improve it fail, I can switch to a delete. julianmh (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep based on recently added links. Ipsign (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Globe and Mail" and "The Star" are major Canadian newspapers, and mentions there are IMHO clearly non-trivial; added other (IMHO less important) links from Vancouver newspapers don't hurt too. Ipsign (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note addition of substantive third-party references and additional information. Kirstinhepburn (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move if kept - should be at "Vision Critical", capital C. PamD (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - that this is the umbrella company for Angus Reid polling is of notable stature, i.e. as the corporate arm/upper tier of one of Canada's leading pollsters/analysts. Needs de-spamming and de-promo'ing, but definitely NOT "not notable".Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'keep or merge Important company, but there's the interesting situation that its subsidiary, Angus Reid Public Opinion is apparently better known than the parent company, making the direction of a merge difficult to determine, but I am not sure I see the reason for two pages. COI and spam is reason for improvement, not deletion, if the underlying material supports notability and improvement is possible. Some furrther work is in my opinion needed, and I will give it some. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 3 December 2010 (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.