Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoPhotonics Corporation


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst ✈(conjugate) 15:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

NeoPhotonics Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Creator of article objected to PROD and added a couple of sources but they are routine business directories and don't establish WP:CORP notability. Brianhe (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a public corporation, listed on the New York Stock Exchange.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment2: "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case" per WP:LISTED. – Brianhe (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added a history section, with references from The Wall Street Journal, Forbes and Yahoo! News. Is that not sufficient?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with the sources added on 16 February is they are all in-passing or routine transactions with the single exception of the Forbes piece. The requirement for in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources still has not been met. - Brianhe (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Looking at the article in its current state, with more info added since it was nominated, it passes WP:CORP. There are several non-trivial articles from reliable sources. The market cap is $389 million, so it is a decent sized company too. Edwardx (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, market cap is not a criterion listed under WP:CORP. Notability depends completely on the quality of the sourcing. Where's the in-depth coverage? – Brianhe (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rule books can't cover every aspect. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Level of coverage seems adequate to me. -- Jayron 32 03:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep With the added sources and expansion it's good to... stay? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2016 (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.