Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vision Source

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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Source

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

I'm unable to find sources that show Vision Source is the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as per WP:ORG. The article lacks third-party references and searches turn up proof that it exists and tons of websites run by franchises, but no significant coverage where the company itself is the subject. Stesmo (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not turning up WP:RS references that can demonstrate notability of this franchise firm. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, I haven't found any evidence that this has anything to meet notability for organisations. Libby norman (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious corporate spam is obvious. Fails WP:ORG. Nha Trang 19:55, 10 October 2014 (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.