Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crizal

: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 redirect to Essilor. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

=[[Crizal]]=

:{{la|Crizal}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crizal Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Crizal}})

This entry violates WP:BROCHURE and judging by its talk page, has apparently been that way since creation. It has been erroneously recommended for speedy deletion in the past. From the page history, the advertisement aspect of the entry has been worse in the past before several editors toned it down.

As the talk page points out, there are no references to justify the claims made for the product and no references to objective product reviews.

Only one reference has a link provided. That one link goes to the manufacturer's website and is a {{dead link}} to boot.

This entry has existed for 5+ years now without the above problems being addressed. Perhaps it can be deleted or at least stumpified. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect: to Essilor, found enough coverage to source a paragraph in the company's page such as [http://www.lesechos.fr/07/04/2009/LesEchos/20400-049-ECH_nouveau-traitement-antireflet-pour-essilor.htm this], subject of some studies in peer-reviewed journals such as [http://www.aaopt.org/pal-id-worth-it this]. A recognizable brand so it's a plausible search term, someone can undo the redirect and write a proper article if more coverage becomes available. Vrac (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect or Weak Delete While it is mentioned in reliable sources, they are mostly press releases or very brief mentions - I would come down on the side of insufficient coverage. If anyone can produce multiple reliable sources with truly substantial, in-depth coverage, I could be persuaded otherwise on this one. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The redirect seems like a good solution to me. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

: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.