Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FocusVision

: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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

=[[:FocusVision]]=

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

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

This page is a festival of corporate peacockery, close to a full house of buzzword bingo.

Even in the earliest versions of the article, before all the promotional edits, I don't see any evidence that the topic meets WP:GNG. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment Nom is right about the promo, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FocusVision&oldid=885695953] as the pure PR version before I trimmed most of it. Bakazaka (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Tks for the trim. But looking at the sources in your trimmed version[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FocusVision&direction=next&oldid=885695953], I don't see much RS coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

:::Me either. Just trying to focus our vision, so to speak. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete: Originally created by a :WP:COI :WP:SPA, with edits shortly afterwards by another :WP:SPA. Aside from provenance questions, though, routine announcement coverage (including [https://www.research-live.com/article/news/focusvision-to-integrate-research-tools-/id/5033452 this] about a recent company strategy announcement) is not sufficient to establish notability, nor is a bronze Stevie award in a specific category inherently notable. There is [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=i7vfCt3mmnUC&lpg=PA91&pg=PA91#v=onepage summary coverage] in a 1998 book but stated as being based on primary information. Enough to verify this as a company going about its business, but fails :WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2019 (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.