Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wafer-level Packaging

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. — Cirt (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wafer-level Packaging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Marketing neologism, not in common use. —Chowbok ☠ 03:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The thousands of sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches linked above show obvious notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A quick search on Google news and scholar has many results, so it appears to meet notablility requirements.--EdwardZhao (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The claim that the term is not in common use is likely incorrect since there are 1,500 results returned by Google Books. While I have not examined the results closely, it is likely that the claim that the term is a neologism is incorrect since the term appears to have been in use for at least ten years. The latest mention is from 2011 in Structural Dynamics of Electrical and Photonic Systems, while detailed discussion can be found in books published as early as 2000: Chapter 10 of Low Cost Flip Chip Technologies, which suggests it was already an established term then. The claim that the term is not just a neologism, but a marketing neologism (buzzword), is also likely incorrect since there is significant coverage (an entire chapter) about the technology from as early as 2000. If the term is a buzzword, then why is there non-trivial technical coverage of the technology that the term describes? Rilak (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2011 (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.