Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Vision

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. Consensus that out of the sources that satisfy reliable/independent/sig cov/secondary, there are insufficient to meet NORG Nosebagbear (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Real Vision

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Some coverage but usual paid effort at promotion. scope_creep^Talk 08:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Confirming my PROD rationale: "Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH". One NYT article is not enough, the rest of the coverage is trivial. As best, this is WP:TOOSOON. shoy (reactions) 13:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Don't agree with that it does't meet WP:ORGIND. NYT, Variety, Business Insider, TechCrunch are all quality sources. In addition, they have 20,000 subscribers, which is a significant amount in my opinion to be notable. I also removed one bad reference (Reuters, which did not mention the company at all). Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument put forward above, that the websites mentioned are "all quality sources" has nothing to do with WP:ORGIND which deals with "Independence", including ensuring that the content is independent. So that rebuttal doesn't make sense. If a "quality source" relies entirely on an interview with the CEO/Founder for their article, it still fails WP:ORGIND and that source is not considered for the purposes of establishing notability. Adding the number of subscribers for the company also has no bearing on notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. This a barely used account that has not been editing since April 2018 and came in on the 26 October to vote on a large number of business Afds. scope_creep^Talk 01:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at each reference in turn.

1.

2. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH capital transaction, such as raised capital

3. This is off of a press release. The text It's a real mix of things; it's somewhere between TED and Netflix and The Economist can be found several other sites indicating it is a press release, e.g. [1]

4. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH capital transaction, such as raised capital

5. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Primary reference. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage

6. Event listing for an event listing documentary. fails WP:EVENT

7. Event listing for an event listing documentary. fails WP:EVENT

8. Event listing for an event listing documentary. fails WP:EVENT

That leaves the New York Times article and I think that has been paid for. scope_creep^Talk 01:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs stronger consensus to act on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP, HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 5 November 2019 (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.