Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Vision Windows

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 no consensus. This article was nominated for deletion as per being an advertisement in nature and as per the company being non-notable. Some users herein have agreed with the notion of the article functioning as an advertisement as a basis for deletion, but some of those users have not addressed whether or not the topic is notable (e.g. "I agree, all COI edits also", "Reads like an advert"). Other users have opined for deletion as per the article being an advert and that the company is not notable. Conversely, some users have stated that the company is notable and that promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Some users also stated that promotional aspects in the article were improved after the article was AfC-accepted (e.g. "Tone has been improved since my acceptance at AFC as well", and "Well researched and improved" appears to possibly be related to this). Another user only addressed notability, but not aspects of promotionalism ("Subject appears to have been covered extensively through RS"). Ultimately, there are myriad opinions here, and there is an overall consensus herein that the article would benefit from copy editing to address promotional tone. However, no consensus for a particular action in relation to article deletion or retention has arisen within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Vision Windows

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

Advert for non-notable home improvement company Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, all COI edits also. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was an inexperienced editor at that time and didn't know what I was doing. I have learned and my article has already gone through the inclusion process. @Jcc: @Mduvekot: @Joseph2302: I can honestly say that I came to Wikipedia because I thought the Home Living project needed help and while I realize my earlier work was lacking quality, I went ahead and cited multiple academic sources for the latest version of this article and even read the rules of Wikipedia more thoroughly . I am not an advertiser, I'm a nerd who loves company information and I hope to help Wikipedia alot. SWAloha (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is also a notable organization due to the independence of its many reliable sources from academic journals, newspapers, and remodeling publications. Per WP:ORGSIG, WP:ORGIND, and WP:ORGDEPTH. SWAloha (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article clearly does not meet the guidelines as a notable organization because the content of this article is suited more for advertisement purposes of the company itself, being hidden by listing "facts" about a private organization. Furthermore, the company produces no notable or unique product or service which is widely recognized as a "standard" or being considered as a new "standard" for a service or product. You cited WP:ORGSIG too, and from that "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" you have still yet to prove American Vision Windows has, or ever had, significant or demonstrable effects to anything including, but not limited to, their field of business, society, science, or education and this helps to justify the article should be deleted. Rmparten (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The company is the first window company in California to implement a Christian philosophy within its philanthropic-focused company culture. I cited multiple academic sources on the subject. They are also the largest window contractor in the state. SWAloha (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like an advert. ReusGang (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject appears to have been covered extensively through RS QubixQdotta (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as covered in reliable sources enough to pass WP:GNG. Tone has been improved since my acceptance at AFC as well. Joseph2302 12:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The article could easily pass WP:GNG as well as WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND for its amount of independent sources supporting its point. Well researched and improved. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■}
Strong keep - The article is supported by large number of quality independent sources. Meets WP:GNG + WP:CORPDEPTH. However, the article does need to be cleaned up to remove any advertising like language and stick to the facts about the company in plain language.GreenMountainGate (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 13:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit for PROMO tone. improbably for a home renovation company, this company has attracted sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others really, the company passes GNG. Editing needs to be done for promotional tone, which the editor did work on back at AfC, but fundamentally it should be kept. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the company is too small to be notable ($33 million annual revenue.) Almost all the academic articles seem to be in extremely minor journals indeed, (see [1] and i think amount to cleverly placed advertorials. Ido not consider that particular one a RS for anything. (The other refs are its own web site or otherwise trivial) DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 22 October 2016 (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.