Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaestroVision

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---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MaestroVision

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

Nonnotable and promotional. The only usable reference is the first, and it seems to be in the style of an extended press release DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself tagged it for deletion but it was removed with no other attempts of reconsideration, I examined everything before and there was simply nothing for any applicable notability, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you repeat your boilerplate deletion statement, I know its time to look further. LOL Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

~~KEEP~~ Comment French-language sources look available to meet WP:CORP. Le Devoir and Laval cite the article alongside Creative Cow... and the Le Devoir source is quite substantive. Why not simply tag it for tone and let issues be addressed through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At best it's very weak that the (only) three major newspapers in the Montreal, Quebec area have chosen to give this only routine coverage. Striking my keep Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Le Devoir ref is a great find: though small circulation, it's considered Quebec's journal of record (though its politics are a joke, imho). That Laval ref would be primary, though. It's the city of Laval (just north of Montreal) announcing a contract with them. So while it's great for WP:V it wouldn't help with WP:N. User:Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, In my digging, I also found authored articles in French Quebec's L'Écho de Laval (1), L'Écho de Laval (2), Courrier Laval, and ~~another in Le Devoir... enough so that I feel WP:CORP is met and am comfortable changing my "comment" above to a keep. Needs work, not deletion.~~ Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, your "other" Le Devoir piece is the same article. And that, I should add, is in the paper's Education section, not business, and appears to be pushing the importance of Concordia University's MBA program and reads more like an advertorial piece. The Creative Cow blog's just a mere mention. And then there are the Laval weeklies, all reporting the same thing, which is the company's ultimately successful bid to webcast city council meetings. For what little it's worth, I've never heard of this company, which appears to be a fairly minor player in Quebec's audiovisual sector. More importantly, based on the news sources I don't think it truly does meet WP:CORP. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the dup.. it was unintentional. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.