Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVI Sound International (2nd nomination)

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AVI Sound International

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

I don't see it satisfying WP:COMPANY. No real improvement since the first Afd way back when. Even the one review states the company "has flown under the radar of the masses for so long". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the unsourced claims and other puffery. Topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺11:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first AFD closed no consensus, and even that was primarily due to low participation rather than any particularly strong evidence of notability — the only keep vote present there was from an SPA who worked only on articles about loudspeaker manufacturers, with a rationale that amounted to pleading for time to strengthen the sourcing without actually showing any concrete evidence that improved sourcing was actually possible. And no improvement took place afterward either, as that participant made only four further edits to Wikipedia after that discussion concluded of which none were to this article. The depth of sourcing needed to make it notable simply is not there, and nothing stated in the article entitles it to a free presumption of notability in the absence of a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 13:26, 5 May 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.