Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicon Storage Technology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Tan | 39 21:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Silicon Storage Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No indication this company meets WP:CORP notability standards Tan | 39 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you checked? A few seconds glance at the Google News results yields coverage in Forbes, FOX News and CNET News. Not that these reports on minor stock movements confer notability, but they certainly indicate the topic passes the sniff test. Skomorokh 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did check, thanks for asking. Like the nomination said, I didn't see any significant coverage. Thus I started the AfD, so other people could do their own research and weigh in. Feel free to cast a !vote. Tan | 39 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. This is very spammy and was started by User:Sstinc, so I would normally kill it on sight as a spam article. However, this company is clearly notable. Therefore, I am sitting on the fence on this one. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to Hoovers this is a significant company with 2008 sales of US$315m and 600+ employees. WP:CORP states
- sufficient independent sources usually exist for such companies that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source).
- So yes, the current article is spammy and needs cleaning up, but shouldn't be deleted on notability grounds. Savlonn (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2009 (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.