Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envizions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Envizions (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)
This company is non-notable. Has produced an undocumented, likely minimal amount of products. Current product has been delayed with no ETA. A simple redirect to the product that they did ship some of is sufficient. Kai445 (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable company. Minimal coverage, maybe revisit if/when their only product is ever released. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:GNG Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom and Serge. As a side comment, redirect may not be suitable as both of the console articles look like they may not pass GNG either. -- ferret (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I agree with what you say about redirects. I'm starting to doubt that their product's article's pass the GNG too, and the whole reason this went to AFD is because a user didn't agree with the redirect, so I'd prefer something more concrete/enforceable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To clarify my position: I had initially believed that a redir was sufficient, but between GNG not really being met, and the resistance to the redirect, I'd rather see it deleted altogether. -Kai445 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2012 (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.