Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BaySand

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 delete. czar 16:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BaySand

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined WP:PROD. Company does not meet WP:CORP notability level. Current refs are mostly press releases/primary sources. Standard searches didn't reveal much else. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At first glance the sources appear to be news articles, but they're all press releases or links to BaySand's website, which don't fulfill WP:CORP. Searching for BaySand yielded the same result; just press releases and WP:SELFPUB. Sunmist (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent indication of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and this is honestly A7 and G11 material. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles from independent source like EETimes & EETimes Japan has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpteoh (talk • contribs) 02:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The additional sources that you added were press releases and an article that didn't mention the company. shoy (reactions) 19:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "didn't mention the company"??, please see links from electronicsweekly.com, electronics-eetimes.com, silicontap.com, eetimes.jp, eetimes.com, news article about 3rd parties (Toshiba, EnSilica) and Baysand
Delete -- an advertorial article that lacks sufficient RS to sustain an encyclopedia entry. My searches do not reveal anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely an advert article and appears to be only press releases. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer to the press release by 3rd parties and independent party like eetimes.com eetimes.jp
I was getting ready to close this per SNOW (well, it's running out of time anyway), but the most recent editor is correct: the company is mentioned here and here, and these things do not appear to be press releases. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the first article contains a trivial mention: "FFSA – Fit Fast Stuctured Array is astructured array custom vehicle that incorporates technology from BaySand..." (and that's it). The second article appears to be a reprinted press release about a partnership: "EnSilica and BaySand team on 65nm MPW runs" with quotes from executives: "“With EnSilica’s involvement in the ASIC UltraShuttle-65 program, our mutual customers now have the opportunity to implement a SoC with a full set of sophisticated IPs including RISC-based CPU, encryption and hardware accelerators,” says BaySand EVP of Marketing and Sales, Ehud Yuhjtman." So this is all essentially PR / trivial mentions. They only serve to confirm that the company exists, and do not rise to the level of CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's useful. I wish that Wpteoh would log in and explain why those references make our subject notable. K.e.coffman, my comment really didn't pertain to you, but more to the comment of Shoy, which appears to be incorrect. Now, I do not agree that the extensive quotes make it a press release, though it appears to be very friendly press. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.