Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lattice Semiconductor
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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lattice Semiconductor
Delete. On the one hand it's a public company, but the article does fail to meet notability requirements, and reads like wikispam. In it's current form I recommend deletion, but given that it's a public company maybe a re-write could save the article? Tomstdenis 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Tom... Hmm.. Do you really want to delete the Lattice Semi's article? In my mind Lattice are one of only four genuinely successful FPGA vendors worldwide (I think the other three on that list should be Altera, Xilinx, Alcatel). Certainly the Lattice article is poorly written at the moment, but deletion is absolutely not the answer. Keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfmcp (talk • contribs) 2007-02-02 18:35:03
- As I said, the article requires revision if it is to be kept. As it stands right now it lacks references to prove notability. The article is also very short on details. Tomstdenis 19:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- We call articles that are short: stubs. The tag for such a stub is {{company-stub}}. The tag for an article that lacks references is {{unreferenced}}. The tag for rewriting is {{cleanup-rewrite}}. And the tag for an article on a company that may not satisfy our WP:CORP criteria is {{notability}}. We expand stubs. Only after you've done the research and determined that there is nothing written about a company except its own self-publicity, advertising, press releases, autobiography, and so forth, and thus that the article is unexpandable from any independent sources, should you come to AFD. Your nomination gives no indication that you've actually done any research at all to see what sources exist. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies. This page is over two years old. If there were many notable things to say you think people would have said them by now. I tend to think there likely is, but not knowing enough about the company (aha the catch-22) I recommended the AfD. My bad I guess. I still vote to delete unless the article is turned into a real wiki article (by someone who presumably knows the company). Tomstdenis 21:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Are you actually serious about the two years old bit? Do you have any idea how many articles there are on Wiki? Look at the main page and you may get a sense. Not every article is going to be FA. There are too many, and when we have to come spend time on a page like this, it takes away from spending time making articles better. Next time: 1) look at the criteria for AfD 2) research the topic to see if it is indeed an AfD. And for pittance I think you should research the company here and improve the content. Otherwise it looks like you Afd was in bad faith, like maybe you work for a competitor? Like maybe Elliptic Semiconductor Inc.? Looks like a conflict on interest to me, point #2 on the conflict page. Just because you delete things from your talk page, doesn't mean we can't see what was there and determine people's true motives. For those who do not know who the AfD nominator is, look here, then here. And since you like to threaten others with complaints to admins, this is not a threat. Aboutmovies 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies. This page is over two years old. If there were many notable things to say you think people would have said them by now. I tend to think there likely is, but not knowing enough about the company (aha the catch-22) I recommended the AfD. My bad I guess. I still vote to delete unless the article is turned into a real wiki article (by someone who presumably knows the company). Tomstdenis 21:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- We call articles that are short: stubs. The tag for such a stub is {{company-stub}}. The tag for an article that lacks references is {{unreferenced}}. The tag for rewriting is {{cleanup-rewrite}}. And the tag for an article on a company that may not satisfy our WP:CORP criteria is {{notability}}. We expand stubs. Only after you've done the research and determined that there is nothing written about a company except its own self-publicity, advertising, press releases, autobiography, and so forth, and thus that the article is unexpandable from any independent sources, should you come to AFD. Your nomination gives no indication that you've actually done any research at all to see what sources exist. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, the article requires revision if it is to be kept. As it stands right now it lacks references to prove notability. The article is also very short on details. Tomstdenis 19:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but Cleanup. Lattice is (imho) unquestionably notable in the electronics industry. The article just does not do a particulary good job of conveying that. Arakunem 19:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. They are notable by the standards given : Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Does need serious clean-up and sources, but that is a different tag. Aboutmovies 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The product share is an indication of notability, though more documentation would certainly improve the article. DGG 23:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. "No" to a another bad idea by user "tomstdenis". Yes, the article needs a re-write...This company (or it's precursors) originated PAL & GAL devices. --pagemillroad 17:52, 5 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.
