Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cvision Technologies

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cvision Technologies

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. This article was previously started by a COI editor and speedily deleted as spam. A COI editor then recreated the identical article. I have spent quite a bit of time fixing the article, removing spam language and referencing it, but have been hampered by a lack of third party references, despite the article creator looking for them and extensive searches myself. Currently it has only two non-company/non-press release refs and both are very weak for establishing notability. One is a National Science Foundation grant listing and the other looks like a press release interview. I invited an assessment of the article for notability by a non-involved admin who rendered the opinion that the company is non-notable and that the article should be taken to AFD for wider input. Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. No indication of notability, and virtually no references worth anything. Holding a patent is not of itself notable. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a software company headquartered Forest Hills, New York that produces proprietary software character recognition, document compression, and document capture applications. The references are, as noted, to routine announcements that a grant has been awarded, to directory listings and press releases. I don't see much chance that any amount of labor will establish that this business has long term historical notability or historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Piles of press releases don't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually the article has been flagged for rescue by the editor who created it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple non-primary sources can be found. Currently all sources are press releases and internally generated documents. SnottyWong ^confess 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have attached the most notable sources I have been able to locate so far.There is are multiple good third party articles in the document imaging report, but it is a suscriber report only so I am not sure how to reference it. Any suggestions would be helpful. The Document Imaging Report is one of the most prestigious sources in this field. This is the website about the report.

http://www.documentimagingreport.com/

Here is another link from the document imaging report website with a cvision company description, this is different than the actual Document Imaging reports which Cvision is mentioned in

http://www.documentimagingreport.com/CVISION_Technologies__LLC.1079.0.html

independent third party article about Cvision

http://www.dclab.com/cvision_compression_technologies.asp

independent third party article about Cvision and one of its products

http://www.appligent.com/2006-04-13

Cvision featured in the inc 5000

http://www.inc.com/inc5000/2009/company-profile.html?id=200939400

Cvision in Bloomberg Businessweek

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=38949656

Business Management

http://www.busmanagement.com/article/Getting-savvy-in-the-digital-age/

NSF Award

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0924549

I will post more references as I find them, and I would appreciate information on how to post subscription reports Silverturtle1 (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for posting those. Pretty much all of those have already been either incorporated into the article or reviewed on the talk page. Most are only incidental mentions of the company or else company press releases. Some of them would be useful to establish notability for products like PdfCompressor. None establish notability for the company however. - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is another reference I found: http://www.dpsmagazine.com/content/ContentCT.asp?P=541

also I dont understand how these sources in particular do not establish notability, they are not press releases, they are focused on the company not its products or ceo, and they are not incidental mentions of the company: http://www.documentimagingreport.com/CVISION_Technologies__LLC.1079.0.html http://www.dclab.com/cvision_compression_technologies.asp Jake08041990 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news shows results, all of them from sources Google news search says are reliable news sources. They wouldn't mention the company at all if it wasn't notable. Dream Focus 01:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News turns up a variety sites. Not all of them are reliable sources for establishing notability. Can you point out anything that isn't a press release? I looked and couldn't. -- Whpq (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. All references are its own website and press releases. No reliable third party sources prove notability. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:06, 20 July 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.