Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellitech

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 Ryan Postlethwaite 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intellitech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article fails WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Intellitech. Was speedied under WP:CSD#A7. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article does fail WP:CORP. There are zero hits on Intellitech on news.google.com. —XSG 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I can see from your point the account is an SPA account. Probably should of added other contributions first. It is interesting that other EDA companies have similar entries that are allowed. I previously pointed out Azuro. Only recently on Jan 30,2008 do they appear on new.google.com. To meet that particular criteria, a TMCnet article picked up their press release. I can't explain why Intellitech doesn't show up in news.google.com as it does appear on TMCNet in numerous places [[1]]. TMW www.tmworld.com magazine regularly run articles on the company's technology, including cover articles, and three best-in-test awards in the last four years.

The company is listed in Wiki List of EDA companies and was not included in that list by me. I tried to update that informatuon and it was deleted as well. Apparently the editors would rather have that entry with a incomplete ? than the information I supplied. That's a bit confusing.

There's not much I can do if you choose to delete it. I thank you for the opportunity to try working with Wikipedia.Jtagchair (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Intellitech appears in the Wiki Category:Electronic_design_automation_companies[2]. The entry for Intellitech is an attempt to add completeness to the Wikipedia for companies that appear in other areas of the Wikipedia. It seems odd that entries in Wikipedia that include Intellitech are accepted but to define the word/company beyond the entry is not acceptable. I'm new to this, so perhaps there is some bigger picture I am not seeing that would make that contradiction more logical. Jtagchair (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can work on the page while this is going on. If you (or others) can bring the article up to WP:CORP, the consensus could change. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the best I can understand, the primary WP:CORP requirement is 'noteworthy'. As prior pointed out, the company name appears in two other Wiki locations, however without the appropriate information and link. Further, Test & Measurement World Magazine (hard copy and online) is the premier source of electronic information in the industry. It' editors have chosen Intellitech products for a Best-in-Test award for three years (one is here: [3] ) The magazine featured an Intellitech customer and Intellitech technology as its cover story last summer.[4] This is not an article submitted or created by the company.Jtagchair (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-press release related coverage of Intellitech by FPGA Journal[5] Jtagchair (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got great references which demonstrate notability, however these references don't (yet) appear in the article. Find a way to work these references into the article and the article may pass WP:CORP and make it through this AfD... —  X  S  G  08:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as tehre are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of either the company or its software. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, in case you didn't have time to read the above, this second source was given http://www.tmworld.com/article/CA6447662.html and this one: http://www.fpgajournal.com/articles_2007/20070612_roux.htm Jtagchair (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XSG, OK. I wasn't aware that the references should be in the wiki for Intellitech. I'll take a stab at doing that. Thanks for the constructive feedback and help for the novice as to what needs to be done. Jtagchair (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gavin and XSG, Please note I have frequently given [Azuro] as an example of a company in our EDA industry, which appears in Wiki but did not meet the same scrutiny as Intellitech. It does not have the second sources listed in the article nor do they exsist other than press releases. We should be even handed across the board. Further, the type of article here in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electronic_design_automation_companies should not be included wiki if you are not interested in having the companies listed there be in Wiki either. Jtagchair (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Azuro, at least, has many references in the press magazines (in articles written by their correspondents, not press releases. Azuro is the subject of several EEtimes article (the main newpaper in the field). See for example [6] and [7]. Also mentioned in EDN, another large news organization [8] and [9]. This one is from EE Times, Europe: [10]. So Azuro is definitely notable. LouScheffer (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XSG, I added the notable references to the article. Seems that it reads more 'promotional'though which may offend someone. Jtagchair (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteNot convinced about the notability.(Shonali2000 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your input, but it does meet the guidelines of WD:CORP. Please explain all how fellow companies in EDA are acceptable to Wiki and Intellitech is not. Here is Azuro's wiki page, I'm including it since no one is looking at it.

Azuro, Inc. is an electronic design automation (EDA) software company. It is headquartered in Santa Clara, California with a development office in Cambridge, UK.

Azuro develops software for the design of integrated circuits, specializing in analyzing power consumption of the chips. To produce more efficient chips Azuro has developed a program called PowerCentric by concentrating on the clock network. In synchronous circuit designs all changes of state are coordinated by a clock, and this clock edge must be distributed to all parts of the chip. Since the clock signal is distributed throughout the entire circuit it can consume a large percentage of the energy used. Azuro's approach unifies the steps of clock gating and clock tree synthesis. Azuro has a patent pending on a technique it calls iCTS™ for doing this.

Three questions remain unanswered by any of the 'delete' supporters. 1) How is it that this company meets the requirements and Intellitech does not? 2) What usefulness does it hold to list Intellitech in other areas of the wikipedia (EDA companies) but not allow a simple, non-promotional definition? 3) If the definition of Notability from Wiki is: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. How is it given the prior references, that Intellitech fails this test? Jtagchair (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've put Azuro up for AfD as well, as you've fairly pointed out that what is appropriate for the Intellitech article is also fair for Azuro. —  X  S  G  02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Note that Intellitech is the subject of at least two, independently written, EE times articles: [11] and [12]. Also, in EDN [13] and mentioned in [14]. Seems plenty notable.
  • These "independently written" articles are minor rewrites of corporate press releases. They're hardly references. Intellitech is non-notable. —  X  S  G  02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, the editors think their readers might be interested. So at least some people familiar with the field think they are notable. LouScheffer (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to meet WP:CORP, albeit in a rather specialised field. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with regards to Azuro is not usually considered a valid rationale for keeping. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• (Keep...now), I wikified the article, found two third-party citations, added references, and took out redundant see also section.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 06:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to meet the standards set forth in WP:CORP. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 19 February 2008 (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.