Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vizion Interactive

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. The article is found to be promotional material and to have no potential to be notable for inclusion on an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vizion Interactive

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

Article is essentially an advertisement. Current sources (as of Feb 11 2015) do not meet reliability criteria and consist of press releases, links to articles written by employees, conference listings. What is needed is in-depth, independent write-ups by secondary sources in reliable publications explaining why this company is notable, what it is about, etc. Right now all the article says is that the company has principals who speak at various conferences. Possibility that this contributor is an employee of the firm which would constitute a conflict of interest. My sweeps of national publications, Texas-based news, computer-related media did not find anything indicating notability. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tom, I appreciate you flagging this since when it got approved I was surprised since I’ve been trying to get some better content and sources added. I was waiting on confirmation on some other pieces we had been mentioned in, AdAge being one. I had a feeling this might happen, but thought I’d keep doing some more research to add to it since it was already live. As regards to the points you made, if we need more information than just speaking at conferences I’ll work on getting that (hoping this can get set back to draft instead of being deleted outright). The publications that were linked were all included at the top of Ad Age’s Power 150 (see spots 10, 11, 12 when it was around. Since the notability I was looking for was industry based I hadn’t asked about any particular national publications that may have been included. I’m not sure how computer related media fits in; I think marketing or internet marketing would be a better fit. And lastly I wasn’t aware being an employee was something that would be a hindrance and after submitting it the first time and getting it kicked back this wasn’t brought up as a potential issue. I know there have been other company pages created by their own employees though they probably used a screen name that wasn’t their actual name, I didn’t see a point in trying to hide it. I understand if it can’t be placed back into draft, just thought I’d ask. (Joshuatitsworth (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)) comment added by Joshuatitsworth (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if you can find several in-depth sources I'll rescind the nomination. Generally Wikipedia discourages situations in which people directly connected with a subject, such as an employee of an organization, writes about the organization, or when subjects of biographical articles write about themselves; please see these guidelines. The basic issue as you probably know is that it is hard for people to be objective about themselves or their own companies. About possible sources, possibly include this one if it is not there already. I assume you understand SEO, and that you know how Wikipedia, being a motherlode of eyeball traffic, is a tempting target for all kinds of SEO-oriented activities. Every day there are thousands upon thousands of people trying to promote products and services here. If your purpose here at Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia, great, but writing about Innovadex, a company that you used to work for, or inserting references into the article Search engine optimization which point to articles published by your colleagues at Vizion Interactive, such as this insertion pointing to this article by Vizion associate Josh McCoy, can you see how your history of contributions suggests your main purpose is advancing the interests of specific firms? In the larger picture, we all benefit when we have an encyclopedia that is impartial, neutral, non-spammy, like when you, yourself, use Wikipedia to hunt for facts about things, don't you appreciate not having to wade through swamps and swamps of spam.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Draft - the page was accepted by a user now banned from AfC and blocked from Wikipedia for abusing the system. Unless Tomwsulcer objects, I will "speedy" return this to draft and close the AfD.

The author himself admits the page wasn't ready to be published, and I see no reason not to give him another shot. The current sources certainly does not work - all the articles are either written by Vizion people or have only a quote by a Vizion person. None describe the company at all. The only valid source is the Bloomberg profile, which alone is not enough to establish any notability. Incidentally, I would think a SEO company would be smart enough to realize adding links to Wikipedia does zip for SEO since all our links are "nofollow". --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there does not seem any prospect of a draft eventually leading to a wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added what secondary articles I was able to find recently and removed the old "references" that were there. There really is no SEO implementation here other than branding, but I understand what's being said and will gladly accept whatever the outcome is.Joshuatitsworth (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return to draft for potential further improvement. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Draft as per circumstances outlined by ThaddeusB. There appears to be an editor, Joshuatitsworth, interested in improving this so it should not be deleted yet. ~KvnG 04:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor in question has also repeatedly attempted to add a reference link to Vizion on the Search engine optimization page. They have also done extensive work on the equally spammy KonyOne Platform, which I have just nominated for deletion here. I have some doubt whether their further work on this article will actually be an improvement. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)`[reply]

WP:AGF is the better path for me here. ~KvnG 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. I have yet to see a CORP article containing the phrase "...one of the (umpitty) fastest growing (whatevers)..." which ever had a prayer of being anything more than WP:ADMASQ. Pax 11:26, 2 March 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.