Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Vision International

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Vision International[edit]

Non-notable multi-level marketing company. If the article is to be kept, it must include a "Criticism" section, eg. this by the FTC. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE for reasons stated above. If we add a "criticism" section, it may be longer than the article at this point.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 07:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 07:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look, even though I've been here for a couple of years, I'm not too aware of the policies and stuff involved in creating a new article (as in most of the time I'm simply editing already-created articles); nobody told me I HAD to involve a criticism. In fact, my main focus was the Vemma article (a company I'm currently a rep of), and created this as a reference point/stub since this is the parent company of Vemma, but was forced to expand on it with time I don't have simply because it was recommended for speedy deletion. Now one thing I need to mention: Almost 80% of the Vemma article was typed FROM SCRATCH and not backed up, I spent 6 hours compiling it, just to find out it's been speedy-deleted. Be reasonable, I'll work with whatever suggestions you guys might have, and let other people edit and contribute bit-by-bit instead of me having to stay up every night having to re-compound my work. In fact, this article started out as a stub hoping others will contribute, I tried not to make it seem like an "ad" or whatever is claimed, but yet I feel like I wasted HOURS I'm never going to see again. Give me a break, will ya, please? Edwardw818 (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effort of one or more editors is not a reason to keep an article. You may request that the article be userfied, but that is not always the case with borderline spam. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication this company is a notable business. Adding criticism may mitigate bias, but that won't save it if it isn't notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think the article is properly written(or "it looks nice"), it makes little effort to assert its notability. I'm sorry that you've wasted so much time on it, Edward818, but unless you can make the article meet notability guidelines, it'll likely be deleted. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 10:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 13:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Organization doesn't seem particularly note-worthy. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked but found only one good source[1] which, though independent and reliable, is not a substantial mention because it's a slice-of-life profile of a person who happens to be an affiliate. One would need some stronger sources to prove notability. BTW, I removed the list of counties as irrelevant to the article. Wikidemo (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2008 (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.