Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impulse Accelerated Technologies

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse Accelerated Technologies

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP. Hasn't seen references in several years and a google search turns up nothing of interest. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is better than most. It is brief, and seems free from promotional language; it nevertheless manages to sound highly technical while being vague to the point of unintelligibility. I found at least one instance of what might be non-mostly-press release based coverage in a reliable source[1], but I'm not sure that's more than a story about a product rollout. I'd be open to persuasion that this might be notable enough to keep, but it's gotta be in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being mentioned in trade journals like "Chip Design Magazine" and "Electrical Engineering Times" as a company with good products is not notability. Perchloric (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be plenty of references in various news and magazines[2] as well as books[3]. Obviously a lot of work to be done, but enough references to be notable. --Icerat (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Observation You listed to a search (the AFD already does that) but have you read the results? Most are either press releases or passing mentions. The books seem to be incidental mentions (didn't buy them to find out...) I'm open if you can show some links to actual articles from reliable sources that is more than a press release or passing mention. I didn't find any originally. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2011 (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.