Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LYNX Photonic Networks


 * 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

LYNX Photonic Networks

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Was prodded as G11 but there was enough room for doubt, and it has sat at CSD for over 24 hours. Hence moved to AFD. Manning (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (weak). Despite considerable effort by the page creator, most of the links seem either self-generated by the company or are tenuous references at best. Does not strongly meet notability.Manning (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There seems to be sufficient notability here (albeit not necessarily in the article). Hoover's has an article on the subject (always a good yardstick for WP:CORP) and I get a good feeling from news reports like this one that more may be out there. $300 million net worth seems to justify that. Admittedly, there is a load of press-release spreading going on, so it's only a weak keep from me. I've been in conversation with the article creator, and we seem to have worked out the G11 issues. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 10:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * these reports are not press releases, they're market research papers, osting thousand of euros, which choose to pick out Lynx and devote time to talking about it. Likewise, I would hope that if these were all merely press releases they would not be presented with their publisher's logo next to them. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obvious advertising is a separate matter entirely from notability, and this article contains obvious advertising: Lynx built its products around its patented light management technology, to provide cost-effective, [all optical] switching solutions. Since there solution is [all optical] in nature there is no need to replace it when upgrading other elements of the network such as the [XDM]'s, [Transponder]s, and [Optical Amplifiers].  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So fix it! I've done your example in the meantime. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 15:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Googling produces press releases and more press releases; there's no indication that anyone really cares about what products this company may produce (and for that matter, not a lot of evidence in the article that they are producing something notable). Money raising isn't notability. Mangoe (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry but I can't find the reliable independent secondary sources required by WP:CORP. Yes, there are fluff pieces, but given this article's extremely self-promotional nature, I would want to see good evidence for notability to warrant keeping and fixing. If the fluff was removed from this article, it would be four lines long. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we've got one independent source under WP:CORP: Hoover's. You're welcome to defluff the article. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 09:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article has been expanded by creator with information regarding patents. c.f. long posts on my user talk page, outlining the company's notability in designing components which were then used by many large telecommunications firms. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 19:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.