Deletion of Visiondirect.co.uk

Comment: Fails  and  |clearly promotional  and lacks |Reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:PROMO||WP:RS)

Comment: A  article on a non-notable firm/website. Fails , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (:WP:SPA||:WP:CORPDEPTH||:WP:NWEB)

Comment: The text of the article has been much improved since I nominated it for deletion.  I still see a lack of reliable sources, though. By my count, the company is mentioned in independent, reliable sources three times: Twice in 1998 when they were fined for their way of selling contact lenses (they appear to have been the first or among the first to sell online in UK) but sources which only focuses on illegal activity does not give notability per , and then once in passing in 2008 along with two other similar sites. The rest of the sources are not what we normally consider independent, reliable sources but homesites or press-releases disguised as journalism (prwire etc.). There may of course be off-line sources we are not aware of, but all in all my impression is that this isn't a company that is covered in reliable media to such an extent that we can write a comprehensive article based on reliable sources without supplementing a lot with non-independent homepages, press-releases etc. So I think it still fails  / 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ILLCON||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)