Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lasergraphics

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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lasergraphics

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

No claim of notability for this company. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Yes, the company makes products which are sourcable as used within the film industry, but it has not received more than mentions in relationship to the companies which use their products or the projects on which they were used. Selling something is not intrinsically notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 27 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just about the only secondary source I could find. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and I'm just not seeing that with this article. StewdioMACK (talk) 10:57, 3 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.