Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicon microstructures 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 Merge into new article Elmos Semiconductor. Non admin closure. Jorvik 09:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silicon microstructures inc

Silicon microstructures inc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable subsidiary of a semiconductor company. Contrary to opinions expressed on the talk page, I do not think that it passes WP:CORP: No secondary sources are given, and none have been added since the notability warning was put on in Nov 06. Article was created by an WP:SPA. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: The parent company does not have an article on the English Wikipedia, so there is currently no place to merge the imformation to. --B. Wolterding 22:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. I would add that article doesn't assert the subject's notability. -- Futurano 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. User:Helle66 (a SPA on the English Wikipedia, but not on the German one, though without very many edits) made a case for keeping it on the talk page, but was not notified of the discussion. I have notified this user on both Wikipedias. Tualha (Talk) 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I've googled around and, though there are a lot of hits, it doesn't seem any more notable than a million other companies. Plus it was created by an SPA who hasn't done anything with it in months, and it has pretty much died on the vine. Replying to Helle66's point on the talk page, notability in Germany doesn't mean it needs an article in the English Wikipedia; it means it needs one in the German Wikipedia. Tualha (Talk) 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, plenty of secondary sources exist on Google News, and the parent company is even more notable. At worst it should be upmerged into an article about the parent company, which I am happy to do if nobody else has a problem with that approach. John Vandenberg 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Same opinion as John, including the upmerging to a parent as an option. If you want to do so, I think this will be the best solution. Thanks to Tualha for my notification. --Helle66 07:06, 16 July 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.