Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon etc.

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. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photon etc.

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

~~non-notable per~~

~~WP:CORP~~

~~unable to find coverage per~~

~~WP:CORPDEPTH~~ Deunanknute (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

keep change due to new links Deunanknute (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was also unable to find any indpeth coverage. Mostly all that can be found is listings in company directories of various websites. I found one article talking about a research product they released 2 years ago, but it seemed like it was just copied from another
WP:CORP. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~ Keep - There are sources about some of their research, but I can find any independent sources that cover the company in depth. Fails
WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 01:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Changing !vote to 'keep' based on sources found by LauraIsabelleDB.- Mr X 22:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets
WP:ORGDEPTH. - LauraIsabelleDB 18:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Scientific references (pear-reviewed articles mentioning the use of their technology and patents) are numerous, which is in accordance with
WP:NPOV. Lingau.alex 09:32, 04 February 2015 (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.