Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vision Science Inc.

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. Guerillero | My Talk 07:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Science Inc.[edit]

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

A CSD A7 was declined. A NASDAQ quoting does not alone notability assure. A comany such as this should have some independent sources. None have been found. Fails WP:LISTED, WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete Due to the name it is not easy to demonstrate that this company is or is not notable, but the AFD has been open for over a week and the article has not been improved. Recommend "soft delete" rather than "no consensus" due to the fact that even if this company is notable, the "net gain" to Wikipedia for having this page as-is vs. not having it is close to zero. HOWEVER, if there are significant updates that demonstrate notability made after the time of this comment, then you can disregard this comment as I would likely change to "neutral" or even "keep." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find some routine press-release coverage of their EndoSheath product but nothing in depth on the company itself. A firm going about its business but no apparent claim to notability; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Can be recreated if substantial coverage emerges.Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2014 (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.