Talk:SiliconBlue Technologies

to: Lectonar Silicon Blue is the 6th FPGA vendor at this time, there is no info about it, or its products at wikipedia, what is not right, the first 5 companies are represented, the 6th Silicon Blue and 7th Acronix are not

both those companies have products that in some feature areas are superior compared to the others, Silicon Blue is ultra low power operation at <10 microamper, Acronix is ultra fast 1.5GHz fabric speeds

The argument you are using is called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; you'll have to provide references. Lectonar (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many references are needed ?

The company introduced their products middle 2008, and there are not so many references, in my opinion the existing references should be enough to prevent the page from speedy deletion. There are more publications available but i only selected one per publisher —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trioflex (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Blue is a new company with a notable product in the FPGA market. They offer parts intended for use in handheld units with very low power, very small size and low prices. This is a market where no FPGA has been able to compete before due to the nature of FPGAs typically being more expensive than a custom product doing the same task. Extremely low power makes their product distinct and competitive.

Certainly their presence in the FPGA market with a goal of making a product for a new target area makes them worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuarm (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would suggest more sources, focus on Wikipedia defined reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, journals, books, and the like. But not press releases or anything that is not independent of the company. Also ensure they provide more than trivial coverage, as in the article is about the company and is more than a few sentences. As to the rest of the argument, I'm going to be a bit blunt: blah, blah, blah. Please read this guideline on what is a notable company to Wikipedia. We do not care that a company is new, it is not Wikipedia's role to create notability in companies. We allow companies that are already notable, so if its not there yet, come back when it is. And our measure for this is the amount of notice other people have made of the company as demonstrated through the coverage of the media. So we don't care how wonderful the products are or what market they are in, or where they rank in that market; we only care about if the media has taken notice of the company. On a side note, if you work for the company, also see WP:COI. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The critique of references in the article is harsh. The first two at least are not straight rehashes of company PR. Clive Maxfield in particular is a respected EE journalist. I would like to see the author flesh out why their business and technology is notable (as indeed Clive Maxfield does). I don't believe speedy deletion can be justified. Jeremybennett (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]