Deletion of LEAD Technologies (2nd nomination)

Comment: None of the reasons including the sources provided by {{u|Trusty route}} above have anything to do with the actual criteria used to establish notability. The guideline is .  requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with |in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing |"Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include ''original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject''. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. Also, saying that the organization is notable because it had a demonstrative effect on scientific communities is |synthesis, none of those scholarly articles says that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:SYN)

Comment: does not meet  / , per review of available sources, including presented at this AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: addtl citations, content could be added to expand page but not necessary. Active since 2011 with updates over the years. The citations currently on the page do meet the minimum requirements for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: For those Keep !voters that believe that there are papers and sources which demonstrate notability, please post the best two of three |links below for analysis. Be aware, each reference must meet both  and . If you can find two references that meet the criteria, I'll |change my !vote
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:THREE||WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND||WP:HEY)