Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightspeed Media Corporation (2nd nomination)

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 | ^Talk 00:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspeed Media Corporation[edit]

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

The article's subject does not meet WP:NCORP & sig RS coverage cannot be found. AfD in 2007 closed as "keep"; the notability guidelines and community consensus have both evolved since then, so it's an opportune time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the current article doesn't seem to include any of the legal "issues" that the company was involved in, and that received media coverage. Some starter examples:[1][2]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial references here for this company... doesn't seem notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. but it might be possible for a NPOV article on the legal case. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 21 December 2016 (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.