Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powertech Technology

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Powertech Technology

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

Frankly I also wasn't sure about this one regarding PROD or AfD as the best I found was basically only these links (several within the first few pages) but none of them suggest obvious better notability and improvement so here we are for better insight. Considering both the information here and the few amounts of coverage, I'm curious how active this company still is. Notifying author In ictu oculi. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Taiwanese chip companies of a certain size are usually notable, as they are major players in the market. Here's some coverage: [1] from Bloomberg Businessweek (this seems to have been a big deal, and it's all over Google News), [2] from Xbit Labs (I consider this an RS), [3] from Barron's (brief mention), and lots from the Taipei Times: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. Some of these Taipei Times articles are a little routine, but others are quite substantial. Plus, there's plenty more where these came from. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources located by NinjaRobotPirate, subject appears to satisfy relevant inclusion guidelines. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2015 (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.