Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vision6

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 Speedy delete per CSD A7 (no claim of notability) and G11 (article was obvious spam). I note that this article had been previously speedy deleted for these reasons, and have salted it as well to prevent recreation.. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vision6

Vision6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject not meeting WP:ORGCRITE. References presented in the article are either not reliable or contain passing mentions. Hitro talk 12:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References provided are PRIMARY or are based almost entirely on PRIMARY sources, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like an advert with poor third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2017 (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.