Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siae Microelettronica

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siae Microelettronica

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

The page has been probably written by the company itself for promotional purpose, after failing to add the same content onto it.wikipedia. Furthermore, the page shows no clear evidence of notability --Vale93b (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Vale93b (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. --Vale93b (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To the nom (Vale93b, please note that per WP:AFD and WP:BEFORE - in a deletion discussion, the purpose of writing an article doesn't factor in to a deletion discussion, nor does the quality of the article's assertion of notability. It strictly comes down to whether the subject is actually notable or not. Would you please be willing to clarify your nomination under those understandings? A Google News search reveals a few reliable sources discussing the article subject. Digging through the mountain of press releases wasn't easy, but some reliable, comprehensive, coverage does exist: [1], [2], [3]. I'm not taking a stance one way or the other regarding deletion, I just wanted to introduce more facts and point out the AfD guidelines. Waggie (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the page because, even if some reliable references are available, the subject has just regional-wide notability and it does not meet WP:CORP Vale93b (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMHO the page with the latest updates reflects the international character of the company and justifies the existence of the page. Besides the page is now written in a more neutral way and I propose to remove the advertisement banner and I vote to remove the deletion banner too.Vegas33 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC). To contribute with notability of the Company, I found and published also the reference to a noted Italian newspaper "Corriere della Sera"[4]. Vegas33 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm rather new to wiki, but in my opinion we should factor in both news and technical notability in the specific field. The company actually is involved in several projects in the telecom world. A simple search in IEEE returns about 10 recent peer-reviewed publications [5] which I think should be considered "independent sources" as per WP:CORP and which affect the international notability of a company. Besides, the company has earned wider attention for both its history (recent acquisitions-related news pointed out by Waggie) and also for researching, among others, a strongly debated topic, namely the exploitment of orbital angular momentum [6] through its subsidiary, Twistoff [7], [8] and several more technical publications ensued in various other peer-reviewed journals and conferences [9], [10], [11] (I guess a full list of these can be gathered, if needed). Hope this helps the discussion. FallBall (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added couple of informations related the company. These informations are valid and they validate the company existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karolina.Sucharska (talk • contribs) 10:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the page in the current revision seems to me a much more substantial proof of notability than the version nominated for deletion on 2 January 2017. Spurred by the initial objections, the content has been expanded and improved and I just finished polishing and adding proper references to independent and reliable sources to provide documentation of the significant aspects of the company and its historical relevance. I think the page should now be considered to stay, hence removing the deletion proposal template. Concerning the advertisement, no mention of current product names or families is present and only pictures of historical products are shown. The text seems to me rather neutral, a mere description of successive developments over time, and thus I also propose to remove the advertisement template. If there still exists reason for contesting notability or advertisement I will be glad to receive suggestions for action. QuantumPhil (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yikes, tons of sources. Saw some more in a quick google search. Plus, the company appears to have global reach. This article meets WP:ORG in my view. Needs some cleanup in terms of tone, though. South Nashua (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new article version respects and meets the WP:ORG and WP:CORP. A lot of references are been introduced in order to justify internationality and notability (I hope that the community will be improve the page with other available references). I vote to remove all issues present on the page. Robert3211 (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Robert3211 (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep;;; - Meets GNG, etc (especially given edits since start of AfD). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:33, 8 January 2017 (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.