Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicon & Software Systems (S3)

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 as sources merely need to be integrated into the article. Peacock terms need to be cleaned up, too. None are reasons to delete. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silicon & Software Systems (S3)

Silicon & Software Systems (S3) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails to establish notability. Reads like and advertisement. Hammer1980·^talk 12:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: move to /dev/null. Could have been {{db-spam}} Andante1980 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, looks like an ad. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am the author of this article. This is not an advertisment, it is just some introduction and useful infomation on the S3 group, It is a massive multi-national corporation, I think it deserves a wiki page Fluid-Rock (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with modifications Fluid-Rock's claim that this is a significant corporation is, I think, quite correct. Unfortunately, the article does read like an advertisement, and clearly lacks a neutral POV. If the advertising tone can be converted into a more neutral tone, this could be a useful article. Tim Ross·^talk 01:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We have stripped out any commentary that might be considered marketing speak. I hope it is down to bare facts from an editors perspective. Notability has been established mainly through press coverage. Published datasheets for the technology may add to the notabilty of the design completed by the corporation, but I don't want to add these links if another considers it further marketing. Hopefully this meets the criteria of those deciding so far. ThanksFluid-Rock (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I checked it again, Fluid-Rock. It is clearly improved, but still not really neutral. Ad-speak phrases are still common in the article, such as "world-class technology", "highly skilled organization with a passion for technology", "innovative consumer solutions", "provides expertise across the full breadth of the value chain". These are highly subjective evaluations, not usefully verified information. Tim Ross·^talk 11:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete blatant advertising Mayalld (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Fair comment on "World Class Technologies" stripped back yet again. S3 Group has distinct business units that can stand together or separately. Effort to explain the difference between these divisions by describing what each one does. Not meant to be advertising and benchmarking against sites like Motorola, Fujitsu and Intel, seems that as a smaller less known entity we may be penalised. Explaining what Silicon and Software Systems S3 is beneficial to users of Wikipedia Fluid-Rock (talk) 22:32, 03 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. There are potential sources identified at the bottom. There is potential for a good article here after a rewrite. Capitalistroadster 22:37, 3 December 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.