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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LightManufacturing LLC[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Source 1 is an okay reference in a specialist blog but not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources 2, 6, and 9 are obvious press releases. Source 3 is a patent application. Sources 4, 7, and 8 are YouTube videos. Source 5 is a yellow pages directory. Source 10 is an interview which is okay to list but does do much as an independent source. Note that I have also checked Google News and did not find more. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CORPDEPTH seems proven by references #s 1, 2, and 10. Other sources seem available including [| Here] and [| Here] Celtechm (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Celltech, thanks for your comments, but I think you are applying WP:CORPDEPTH incorrectly. It's worth looking at WP:RS as well. Press releases don't count at all, and blogs count very little. Same with promotional interviews. Number 2 is such an obvious press release that it includes the company's phone number at the end--it says "Please call 415-796-6475"! Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The nom's argument is persuasive. In looking for legitimate sources, is this company mentioned in the "significant detail" the GNG requires in the mainstream media? = reliable, published, third-party sources? Before any Keep proponent suggests this blog post or that suffices, what is the basis for their assertion that such sources have a reputation for reliability and fact checking, as the GNG requires? Ravenswing 09:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough reliable sources. Miniapolis (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Ravenswing. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There are sources, but they are not reliable because they're blogs and industry publications. The guideline says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Clearly the sourcing in obscure industry publications fails this, and I could not find coverage in media with wider circulation and coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree the article smacks of being promotional for the company. If it attains important patents then there might be a case for for inclusion on that basis, but currently it is difficult to see that the qualifications for notability are fulfilled. Fireflo (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2012 (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.