Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeluros Inc

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-15 22:57Z

[edit] Aeluros Inc

Aeluros Inc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable company. An admin deemed that it did not qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion due to the author's comment on the talk page, but reccomended I brought it here. Delete. J Milburn 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as per the nominator. Btw, I was that admin who recommended the nominator to bring it here. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I would welcome the opinion of authors of articles in Ethernet, 10GE, optics and semiconductors on the notability of the company's contribution to the field. The esoteric nature of a subject does not immediately qualify it for non-notability. IMHO an encyclopedia is a reference not a popularity yearbook. E2550 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please provide proof that this company meets WP:CORP. I do not see how having inclusion guidelines makes something a 'popularity yearbook'. J Milburn 23:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete article offers no claims to notability per WP:CORP let alone sources. Nuttah68 10:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I have a hard time understanding J Milburn's and Nuttah68's interpretation of WP:CORP. According to the WP:CORP guidelines, the notability of a service or product has to be the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works. Well, in the subject of semiconductors for communications it does not get more non trivial than to be published at ISSCC (organized by the IEEE). The two inline refererences in the article are pdf links to these peer reviewed articles on semiconductor technology and not simply self promoting press releases. Finally, regarding the relevance of the technology in question (10GE, transceivers) to ordinary people, it would suffice to say that with very high probability the bits that comprise what you are reading right now have been brought to you through a 10GE transceiver somewhere along their path in the network core or the SAN's that hosts wikipedia. Incidentally, the fastest networks today and hopefully the ones that will be accesible to end users in a few years use that technology (see http://ultralight.caltech.edu/lsr_06252004/ or http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3403161 for example). E2550 11:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment those links were added after the article was nominated and link to pages on the Aeluros wegsite so are not independent. If you can link to them on the ISSCC site that would change. However, you still have the problem that Aeluros is not the subject of those papers but the technology. Nuttah68 11:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I am sorry about the late addition. Initially it was part of the External links section but the nominator mentioned that he could not see it. As far as the independence of the actual URL of the links: I can understand why an algorithm would be confused about that, but not a human. Besides, I would have linked them to the ISSCC web site but unfortunately they are not available on their complete form (the IEEE wants to charge for the complete articles, and only the authoring organization has the right to distribute them free of charge on the web). Please look here for proof that these are not forgeries: http://www.isscc.org/isscc/2004/ap/ISSCC2004_AdvanceProgram.pdf (similar link for the other one). As for the second "problem" WP:CORP mentions that the criteria apply to an organization product or service. Technology companies are most of the time indistinguishable from the product or service they supply. If I were to adhere to the letter of your suggestion I would rename the article to 'Aeluros' 10GE technology' which would look much more like an advertisement. Hope that makes sense. E2550 18:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Additional Comment I re-edited the page to include references in multiple sources so that any misunderstandings should be cleared by now.E2550 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep there are different ways a corporation can be notable, and sales rank is not the only one. Developing multiple notable products is another, and developing products the subject of peer reviewed articles in their own right certainly is. But you need to sy it right at the top because it might happen that someone does not look at the references.DGG 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: To be quite honest, I think the article looks like it is worth keeping now. I am not going to withdraw my nomination, I think it should sit out the AfD in case I am wrong. I admit, my understanding of WP:CORP isn't great, so though this article looks an awful lot better than it did before, I can't be certain it should be kept. J Milburn 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep `'mikka 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As a subject expert, I can personally attest to the notability of the claims in the article, as supported by the references. I think this is a good example of an article that should have been tagged {{expert-subject}} rather than AfD. Dhaluza 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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.