Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optellios Inc.


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Optellios Inc.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:CORP notability standards, all sources are primary/press releases except for a tiny blurb in a local paper. Gigs (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional info on notability here - http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/156136/51/none/none/EDITO/No-mixed-signals - advancing new optical technologies besides commercial purpose only. Article could use more detail but should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.0.249 (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - that article isn't really about Optellios. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I can find press releases and press release rehashes.  Only this reference in the article is what would be considered some actual coverage and it is very thin indeed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Weak Keep, Their equipment/technology is used in hundreds of various facilities. While there is a lack of "original" press coverage, they are indeed a leader in their field. There is some info on them at business week...perhaps we could email them asking for original press coverage?Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a manufacturer of fiber optic perimeter security systems serving a limited clientele, unlikely to become a household name anytime soon.  Their apparent government work might confer importance, but given their security work, it's unlikely to generate a lot of press coverage.  Simply being a "leader in their field" is puffery; and the Business Week reference is a brief investment directory listing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They have a very "elite" set of clientele. Their technology will be used in Qingzang railway, and is in use at NORAD. Clearly, they are a leader in their field, and while they do not have significant press coverage due to the nature of their work, they should be considered ineherently notable given their leading status in their field.Smallman12q (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is "How do we know they are leaders in their field?" Absent sourcing to establish this, then it is all conjecture.  They sold something to NORAD.  Do we have information about competitors?  Do we know if a competitor has sold similar systems in much larger volumes?  If we don't have this information, then we cannot establish that they are leaders in their field.  And without independent sourcing, we don't know the significance of these sales.  All we have a very short blurb from the online site for a group of Philadelphia area newspapers. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And looking around to see who else is claiming to be a leader we have:
 * Fiber Sensys who are "the market leading provider of fiber-optic based intrusion detection solutions for both government and industry"
 * Network Integrity system who also have a bunch of sales to the U.S. military and government, and if they are to be believed were also funded by the US Army
 * Future Fibre Technologies who list the US Air Force, US Army, US Border Patrol, US Dept. of Homeland Security, US, Navy, and NATO as customers
 * So without independent reliable sources, I'm not convinced they are leaders in their field. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case...and the fact that I did a more extended google/academic search which also turned up nothing...perhaps when some contract fraud or something newsworthy comes out, then they will be considered worthy of having an article.Smallman12q (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thus fails notability guidelines  Chzz  ►  21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I have been unable to find reliable sources about this topic that would establish notability. The BusinessWeek link provided by Smallmanq does not establish notability since it is a listing in a directory. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 25 September 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.