Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cadence Design Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedy keep obviously misjudged nomination. A huge company. `'юзырь:mikka 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cadence Design Systems

Cadence Design Systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Magma Design Automation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Speedy-deleted for spam. I found it in the speedy list and someone deleted it. I recreated it as a short spam-free stub, because about 50 other pages linked to it. User:LouScheffer edited it back to all the original spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 2007-06-09 16:16:41

  • Keep. The EDA industry is big enough for serious conferences, journals, etc. So surely the largest companies in the field are notable. Also, a quick search shows 169 references in the New York Times alone. LouScheffer 16:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What would a reader who knew nothing about such a company want to know about it? I think they would want to know what business it is in, how big it is, where it is located, what products they sell, and perhaps some of how they got to where they are today. These are all publically accessible facts, so do not seem like advertising in my mind.LouScheffer 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is unsourced and has failed to assert it's notability. --Witchinghour 16:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Can't see the spam here. But I do see peacock terms. Remove those, add some sourcings, and you have a perfectly fine article, I'd say. Guroadrunner 16:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and revisit in a month if not cleaned up. One and a half billion in turnover should be sufficient to gain at least some external coverage. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well Cadence Design Systems v. Avant! Inc. has been cited as one of the rare instances where a plaintiff has been successful in misappropriation of trade secrets litigation. Uncle G 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The practice of stubbifying spam articles on notable companies instead of deleting is a good one and should be encouraged. DGG 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It was reverted, note. Uncle G 20:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I reverted it because calling something spam does not make it so. A relatively small portion seems spam-like and in this case I believe an editor should remove the spam parts and leave the parts a reader who did not know the company might want. (and I did this in addition to the revert.) Note also that the same editor put a spam tag on Avanti Corporation, where I cannot for the life of me see even a single word that might be considered spam. This lead me to think that perhaps the editor was plunking down spam tags indiscriminately, without reading the articles. Especially in this case, it's better to de-spam a line at a time rather than an article at a time.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Bundled Magma Design Automation for deletion since that article is also there for glorifying and advertising the company. --Witchinghour 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: IMHO it is better to avoid details about current product line (everyone can find this easily on company website) and concentrate on history of the company. Otherwise Cadence is WP notable, because of its history. Pavel Vozenilek 12:05, 10 June 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.