Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silex Microsystems

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silex Microsystems

[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)

It looks like most of the sources are press releases or routine coverage in industry publications, and I didn't find much SIGCOV on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep inclusion in the Financial Times and the Mercator Institute for China Studies shows that this page is worthy of inclusion on wiki. I find the "routine coverage in industry publications" comment questionable. What is "routine" about the coverage? Why does wiki discriminate against "industry publications"? Shouldn't we be promoting the Category:MEMS factories instead of deleting of one out of four articles in it? After all, if a $90 billion revenue company like TSMC is in the business of MEMS we should promote understanding of MEMS. Stickhandler (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Stickhandler (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (1) it's not our job to promote anything except our mission: in fact, to do so jeopardizes our existence (it's Concern 3 of My Big 4 Concerns of 2025); (2) the sources cited above are primary sources, which paradoxically are not the building blocks of an encyclopedia; (3) we don't discriminate against trade publications, but many of them just print press releases, and we keep a handy list of what sources are good, bad, or ugly. I don't expect every newbie to know all of our rules, but we have resources. Bearian (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in hopes to get more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is rather routine and insufficient to meet WP:CORP, and article is bordering on WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 5 February 2025 (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.