Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicon Optix

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 of the debate was keep. Sango 123 03:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Optix

Non-notable semiconductor company. Fails WP:CORP. -- RHaworth 02:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd classify this as nn. AdamBiswanger1 03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Changed to Keep and Cleanup/Expand per J.smith--Shizane 15:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear and notable passer of WP:CORP. Heres how it passes WP:CROP:

Criteria 1, multiple non-trivial published works: (industry publications: [1] and [2]. San Jose Newspaper: [3])

Criteria 2, ranking indices: Technology Pioneers award, 2006 and rAVe 2005 Radical Product of the Year Award.

Criteria 3, stock market indices: None - Privately owned company.

The article was poorly written, but the company clearly passes WP:CORP on multiple measures... and that was just skimming for 20 min on google. ---J.S (t|c) 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding 90k hits on google for an exact-phrase search of "Silicon Optix." ---J.S (t|c) 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per J.S. - needs some work. --mtz206 (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Cleanup/expand, if not cleaned up/expaned Delete Very poorly written, this one seems to be in the start phase. Needs more meat and verifyable (I can't spell sorry) info to be kept. Aeon 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added the sources I listed above, so WP:V is taken care of. Just need to expand the article at this point. ---J.S (t|c) 20:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cool, I will revise my vote when the article is expanded Aeon 18:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JS. Seems notable enough. 199 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems non-notable enough. Tychocat 20:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is an odd day when a multi-national company that also passes WP:CORP is non-notable. ---J.S (t|c) 21:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand a bit. Just because the article is a stub is not reason enough to delete it. BrownHornet21 00:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and has the potential to be a solid article, but it's a shambling mess at the moment. Needs cleanup pronto.--Auger Martel 17:13, 16 June 2006 (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.