Deletion of Lightsource.com (2nd nomination)

Comment: It's not related in the sense that if LightSource were Hindu or Atheistic, political or social, it still wouldn't merit an article under . Just because one can watch free video there doesn't mean it belongs here. #Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|Wikipedia is not a vehicle for getting your name out there (read: publicity),  #Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files|nor is it a collection of external links, however valuable they may be. Many things are valuable that don't belong here. The criterion you must meet for the article to stay is not to prove your content is valuable but to satisfy |the notability guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:WEB)

Comment: Don't let the number of sources fool you. They aren't independent, |reliable sources, and in the two or three that are independent and reliable, the coverage is trivial. |Notability is not asserted from the sources (and cannot be from these sources), and an organization is not inherently notable because of its association with other notables (cf. an talent agent who works for many well-known people but who has no significant independent press coverage -- that agent does not get a page just because his clients do). This is too much like an ad
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: lacks acceptable |reliable sources.  Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: You've made two of the |arguments to avoid: |other similar articles exist (if they're so similar, that's probably an argument for their deletion, too, not for keeping this one) and |it's valuable, so it belongs (but |Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion of any resource nor a collection of all useful information). PS, I'm a conservative Christian who appreciates some of the content you host, but that doesn't mean it belongs here or that this is in any way related to the material's religious nature -- it's not. The website simply doesn't meet the |notability criteria for inclusion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:USEFUL||WP:NOT||WP:WEB)