Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savitech

Savitech

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

no wp:sigcov, fails wp:gng ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 16:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 16:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I was unable to find significant coverage in my searches for sources. Savitech (traditional Chinese: 盛微先進科技; simplified Chinese: 盛微先进科技) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article: I believe this article meets notability guidelines. savitech are the developers of the LHDC Bluetooth codec, one of only a handful of codecs certified by the Japan Audio Society for Hi-Res Audio Wireless. That’s a significant technical achievement and recognition from a respected industry body. These sources talk about Savitech and their codec in a substantive way, which supports notability beyond just a passing mention. As for the tone of the article, I agree some parts might read a little promotional — that can and should be fixed with copyedits. But promotional tone alone isn't a reason to delete the article outright, especially when the subject is clearly relevant in the tech/audio industry and verifiable with reliable sources. A cleanup tag seems more appropriate than deletion. Just to be transparent: I’m not affiliated with Savitech, nor have I been paid to write this article. I created it in my free time because I think LHDC is an underrepresented but notable technology in the wireless audio space. Happy to help improve the article further if needed. User:AthulKriZz (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you list sources that provide significant coverage in reliable sources about the company? The company must meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria for the article to be kept. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are a company database (not sigcov), the company website (not independent), a press release (not independent), and a news article that is so blatantly promotional it is either a press release or a paid piece. I couldn't find anything better via a web search, just more press releases and the occasional passing mention. Toadspike [Talk] 21:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]