Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LightOn

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LightOn

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

LightOn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

More promo nonsense about a non notable organization. It's all WP:MILL at best. CUPIDICAE❤️ 22:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article needs work, but I found more reliable sources, such as this technical paper, this news article, this magazine article, and this journal article. Z. Patterson (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company has been mentioned in independant and reliable sources. While not sufficient, it is also a publicly traded corporations listed on a major stock exchange Pollockito (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get an evaluation of these new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company has been mentioned in independant and reliable sources. It is also a publicly traded corporations listed on a major stock exchange Pollockito (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. None of the new sources provided any independent reliable coverage of the company itself. They are discussions of their products and the theory behind them, ultimately sourced to insiders. Most of the sources in the article are clearly press releases and/or churnalism but [1] [2] and [3] might be usable. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2025 (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.