Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LightStream

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LightStream

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

Page contains little or no information LES 953 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Article is about a former business (current brand?) that made computer networking equipment. The business was acquired by Cisco in the mid-1990s. Google News has a fair amount of press release hits, mostly announcing the acquisition or new products. Books entries seem similar, and are again mostly from 1993-1997. All of this goes to show you that this kind of business has to make a particularly strong showing to establish long term historical notability, and that a flurry of minor coverage of products in the years it was independently active should not be enough. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. If the business passes notability, being defunct doesn't matter. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Smerdis of Tlön: no significant coverage, nothing of encyclopedic value to add to the article.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be helpful if someone would cite the best of the refs for this company. There have been bands, water disinfection companies, and movie companies with the same or similar names, so Google News archive is a bit confusing. Press coverage does not have to continue to the present for an entity to be notable. Was there ever multiple instances of significant coverage of the subject of this article in reliable and independent sources? Edison (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Active or defunct, notability is not temporary. Long term historical notability is a laughable thought exercise, not a criteria for inclusion set by policy. riffic (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on a cursory check for sources, two of which I've added to the article as citations. riffic (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 03:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No historical value, not enough notability facts other than being acquire by a notable company and notability is not inherited; Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources citing BBN Technologies being a founding player advances a certain notability that any other run of the mill company couldn't claim. riffic (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2011 (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.