Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ittiam Systems

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 keep. Michig (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ittiam Systems

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

There is no evidence of WP:CORP. I am One of Many (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough evidence has been added by referencing external listings . naufik —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the references that are not directly from Ittiam's website are press releases. We need reliable, 3^rd party sources to establish notability. Apart from the NASSCOM Innovation Award, which is unsourced (and this doesn't look good), I can't even see an assertion of notability. Storkk (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sufficient coverage at mainline newspapers in India: google search "Ittiam Systems" site:thehindu.com, google search "Ittiam Systems" site:deccanherald.com, google search "Ittiam Systems" site:telegraphIndia.com.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Simply listing search results with no analysis of the results proves nothing. Is there particular hits which you feel support notability? -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Why is that a supporter of keep has to work on it? Are others so determined to delete it? I have used few refs in the article. Now the only usage of primary source as a ref is where its authorized representatives are, which is very difficult for a 3rd party source to acknowledge or claim.--GDibyendu (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - As somebody advocating keeping the article, you need not work on the article (although it is appreciated, so thanks!), but to effectively refute the nomination, specific articles are needed. Simply pointing to search results with no analysis of the result is essentially counting Google hits which is generally not been accepted as a valid reason for keeping an article. If you aren't familiar with AFD discussions, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is a good essay on types of arguments that are generally not accepted. -- Whpq (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~, patent nonsense and unambiguous advertising, possibly without prejudice to re-creation. Ittiam’s mission is to be a world class Embedded Software and Systems Design Company. Ittiam strives to create significant value for its customers, partners, people and investors through its technology and customer focus.....Ittiam continuously invests in R&D to build futuristic designs of high performance and high quality. Customers who license Ittiam designs benefit from the technology differentiation and the time-to-market advantage gained for their products. Customer satisfaction is very high on Ittiam’s priority and Ittiam topping the Forward Concepts’ DSP Professionals Survey as the Most Preferred DSP IP Supplier in every edition during the period 2004-2007 is an acknowledgement of the same from satisfied customers across the industry. While minor trade awards don't count much for notability, this isn't even an attempt at writing an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The material was copied directly from the company website. I've removed it. I don;t have time to review any further but I suggest that this version of the article is not spammy, and represents a more neutral tone so a speedy deletion is unwarranted. -- Whpq (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - I've had to remove so much material I have restored the body text back to the one in the history. This version is how it looked before the reversion. - Whpq (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, simply, then. The restored version isn't quite so obviously advertising, but is still vague on what they actually do. I gather that the business itself involves codecs and other AV compression and decompression software, which they develop and license to other businesses to incorporate into their products. I don't see trade awards for "Innovation", making Top 100 lists, or eveb being "The world's most preferred DSP IP supplier" as conferring encyclopedic notability on the business; and the remaining citations are to routine announcements of funding, products, or earnings. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sourcing in the article is not particularly good, and the version of the article at nomination was a promotional copyvio, but there does appear to be sources out there to establish ntoability. [1] and [2] represent to the best of teh sources I could find. They are articles that are both substantial, and feature the company as teh primary subject. Beyond that, there is coverage that is less substantial which feature the company as the primary subject: [3], [4], [5]. Additionally, there is also coverage availabel where the company is not the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why it does not have more coverage in newspapers is probably because ittiam systems does not sell its products directly to end customers. There are many references at site:ti.com, website of Texas Instruments. If someone has access to tech magazines published in India (which are not available online), then probably more information/references can be produced. Will ask in noticeboard of WP:India.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very different. Initially, the article was clearly delete, but with cleaning up the spammy aspects and hard work in finding reliable sources, I know think it should be kept.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Whpq's sources get me there, I'm convinced by the Economic Times and the first Hindu source--for some reason, the MSN source smells like a barely warmed press release to me. Whether I'm right or wrong about that particular source, there's enough for GNG, I feel. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' enough sources for an article. Even prose like that cited by Smerdis can be fixed. Some more fixing is still needed. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been considerable improvement in this article since I nominated it. I had serious doubts that sufficient reliable independent sources existed, but I know believe the threshold has been met.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2013 (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.