Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vantrix

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. Mkdw ^talk 19:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vantrix

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

Questionably notable as the best my searches found was this, this, this and this and the article's current unsourced state is unacceptable and would need to be improved if actually kept. Likely the best way to take care of this was (and still is) tag it as speedy especially given its state, the author being Vantrix itself and no further improvement since then but I wanted comments for full consensus (especially for a future G4 if applicable). SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep: The subject seems notable. However, I suggest WP:TNT. Mhhossein (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the nominator that the article is poor, but the subject appears to meet WP:CORP notability requirements, such as (in French) [1] (Business write-up in La Presse). The problems in the article's context probably warrants a rewrite, but should not be a reason to delete. -- R45 ^talk! 20:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and allow for possible reconstruction from scratch. The present article is so promotional in manner that I almost considered a G11. (But the fr reference cited seems adequately non-promotional to serve as a base for rewriting). Per WP:TNT, we should not keep and rewrite material of such low quality as this, but remove and start over. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Onel5969 for hopes again to gain a clear consensus. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuala Mole, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StrategiCom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D&D Media Group, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lounge Piranha (this one is especially close to a "no consensus") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota Grocers Association. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and DGG. Sources did not show enough in-depth coverage to show they meet either [WP:GNG]] or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 30 October 2015 (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.