372:
serving a limited clientele, unlikely to become a household name anytime soon. Their apparent government work might confer importance, but given their security work, it's unlikely to generate a lot of press coverage. Simply being a "leader in their field" is puffery; and the
Business Week reference
411:
The question is "How do we know they are leaders in their field?" Absent sourcing to establish this, then it is all conjecture. They sold something to NORAD. Do we have information about competitors? Do we know if a competitor has sold similar systems in much larger volumes? If we don't have
412:
this information, then we cannot establish that they are leaders in their field. And without independent sourcing, we don't know the significance of these sales. All we have a very short blurb from the online site for a group of
Philadelphia area newspapers. --
397:. Clearly, they are a leader in their field, and while they do not have significant press coverage due to the nature of their work, they should be considered ineherently notable given their leading status in their field.
156:
477:
Well, in that case...and the fact that I did a more extended google/academic search which also turned up nothing...perhaps when some contract fraud or something newsworthy comes out, then they will be considered
347:, Their equipment/technology is used in hundreds of various facilities. While there is a lack of "original" press coverage, they are indeed a leader in their field. There is some info on them at
117:
437:
286:
150:
217:
90:
85:
17:
94:
446:
who also have a bunch of sales to the U.S. military and government, and if they are to be believed were also funded by the US Army
210:- advancing new optical technologies besides commercial purpose only. Article could use more detail but should not be deleted.
77:
171:
207:
348:
138:
440:
who are "the market leading provider of fiber-optic based intrusion detection solutions for both government and industry"
573:
36:
452:
who list the US Air Force, US Army, US Border Patrol, US Dept. of
Homeland Security, US, Navy, and NATO as customers
132:
572:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
221:
558:
529:
491:
472:
421:
406:
382:
360:
331:
301:
276:
243:
225:
213:
200:
128:
59:
57:
267:
reference in the article is what would be considered some actual coverage and it is very thin indeed. --
81:
487:
402:
356:
327:
297:
191:
notability standards, all sources are primary/press releases except for a tiny blurb in a local paper.
178:
264:
73:
65:
164:
312:
550:
549:
link provided by
Smallmanq does not establish notability since it is a listing in a directory.
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
188:
554:
483:
398:
390:
378:
352:
323:
293:
144:
510:
538:
506:
460:
256:
208:
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/156136/51/none/none/EDITO/No-mixed-signals
522:
468:
417:
272:
239:
196:
542:
443:
260:
546:
111:
374:
449:
515:
464:
413:
389:
They have a very "elite" set of clientele. Their technology will be used in
268:
235:
192:
432:
And looking around to see who else is claiming to be a leader we have:
317:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
394:
351:...perhaps we could email them asking for original press coverage?
566:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
263:. I can find press releases and press release rehashes. Only
463:, I'm not convinced they are leaders in their field. --
370:
a manufacturer of fiber optic perimeter security systems
107:
103:
99:
163:
322:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
177:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
576:). No further edits should be made to this page.
234:- that article isn't really about Optellios. --
287:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
373:is a brief investment directory listing. -
505:Lacks significant coverage in independent
281:
285:: This debate has been included in the
541:about this topic that would establish
206:Additional info on notability here -
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
559:07:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
530:21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
492:16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
473:19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
422:19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
407:19:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
383:14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
361:00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
332:23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
302:23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
277:16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
244:16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
226:02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
201:19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
60:14:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
537:I have been unable to find
255:- insufficient coverage in
593:
450:Future Fibre Technologies
569:Please do not modify it.
444:Network Integrity system
32:Please do not modify it.
459:So without independent
511:notability guidelines
482:of having an article.
393:, and is in use at
44:The result was
528:
334:
304:
290:
216:comment added by
584:
571:
539:reliable sources
527:
525:
519:
513:
507:reliable sources
461:reliable sources
391:Qingzang railway
321:
319:
315:
291:
257:reliable sources
228:
182:
181:
167:
115:
97:
53:
34:
592:
591:
587:
586:
585:
583:
582:
581:
580:
574:deletion review
567:
523:
517:
514:
375:Smerdis of Tlön
313:
310:
211:
124:
88:
72:
69:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
590:
588:
579:
578:
562:
561:
532:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
447:
441:
427:
426:
425:
424:
386:
385:
363:
336:
335:
320:
307:
306:
305:
279:
249:
248:
247:
246:
185:
184:
121:
74:Optellios Inc.
68:
66:Optellios Inc.
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
589:
577:
575:
570:
564:
563:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
533:
531:
526:
521:
520:
512:
509:, thus fails
508:
504:
501:
500:
493:
489:
485:
481:
476:
475:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
451:
448:
445:
442:
439:
436:
435:
434:
433:
431:
430:
429:
428:
423:
419:
415:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
384:
380:
376:
371:
367:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:business week
346:
343:
342:
338:
337:
333:
329:
325:
318:
316:
309:
308:
303:
299:
295:
288:
284:
280:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
259:to establish
258:
254:
251:
250:
245:
241:
237:
233:
230:
229:
227:
223:
219:
215:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:Find sources:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
568:
565:
547:BusinessWeek
534:
516:
502:
479:
438:Fiber Sensys
369:
365:
344:
340:
339:
311:
282:
252:
231:
218:173.61.0.249
186:
174:
168:
160:
153:
147:
141:
135:
125:
52:Juliancolton
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
484:Smallman12q
399:Smallman12q
368:. This is
353:Smallman12q
324:Ron Ritzman
294:Ron Ritzman
212:—Preceding
151:free images
543:notability
261:notability
345:Weak Keep
314:Relisted
214:unsigned
118:View log
232:comment
189:WP:CORP
157:WP refs
145:scholar
91:protect
86:history
551:Cunard
545:. The
535:Delete
503:Delete
480:worthy
366:Delete
253:Delete
187:Fails
129:Google
95:delete
46:delete
518:Chzz
395:NORAD
172:JSTOR
133:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
555:talk
488:talk
469:talk
465:Whpq
418:talk
414:Whpq
403:talk
379:talk
357:talk
341:Keep
328:talk
298:talk
283:Note
273:talk
269:Whpq
265:this
240:talk
236:Whpq
222:talk
197:talk
193:Gigs
165:FENS
139:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
292:--
179:TWL
116:– (
48:. –
557:)
524:►
490:)
471:)
420:)
405:)
381:)
359:)
330:)
300:)
289:.
275:)
242:)
224:)
199:)
159:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
56:|
553:(
486:(
467:(
416:(
401:(
377:(
355:(
326:(
296:(
271:(
238:(
220:(
195:(
183:)
175:·
169:·
161:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
131:(
123:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.