Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilera

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. KrakatoaKatie 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tilera

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

• Delete nn company with its first product (nominated as well), fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, this webpage has a third-party review of this company. The question now is whether the above mentioned webpage is a reliable source. Moreover, a quick google search shows up quite a number of hits for this company as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. As per the Tile 64 AfD (reprint follows): They're cited in Slashdot and Ars Technica. Not so sure about slashdot, but Ars should pass WP:RS. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)--
• Keep - hold on. See also PC World article which mentions Hot Chips Forum (Day 1 Session Three). So either it's a very fancy hoax or not. AfD premature IMHO. It runs GNU/Linux. Ttiotsw 13:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - and merge in TILE64 into this article to keep as one article whilst little is known about the company and redirect tile64 to this article. Ttiotsw 07:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, definitely notable. [1] [2] [3] [4] Tilera creativity to do a 64 core processor while Intel and AMD only did 4 core until today, makes more than notable, but also part of computing history. Carlosguitar 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Carlossuarez46 on grounds of non-notability as the article only links to its corporate webside and articles featuring its products. This stub is little more than a linkspam.--Gavin Collins 15:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and greatly improve. This company has been featured inTechnology Guardian very recently and given the citations already provided by Bfigura, Ttiotsw and Carlosguitar I'd say this would indeed be a credible, verifiable article if it was improved instead of just deleted outright. Rubberkeith 16:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep. They're in the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118757210423602476.html (subscriber only) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm gub (talk • contribs) 23:01, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Bm gub. The WSJ reference, plus the above PC World reference and the SJ Mercury News reference in the TILE64 article, are enough justification for keeping both articles in my opinion. These guys appear to be succeeding with an extremely demanding technology that competes with major players such as Intel and AMD. EdJohnston 05:09, 28 August 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.