![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy delete. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a complete new rewrite, from scratch, so section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion does not apply, Furthermore, this new version was first created as a draft in my user space, reviewed by experienced editors over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, and approved as satisfying notability concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Song ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but this ruffles my feathers. It is ridiculous to remove the advert tag and say I am "drive by tagging" when you know perfectly well that I am actively working on this article. Any problems that I don't feel I can solve myself will be mentioned here. In the mean time, the article still reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article, so I've restored the tag. causa sui ( talk) 17:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Mellanox Technologies was deleted by me, at AFD, as a copyvio. Jeff Song ( talk · contribs), according to his own account, rewrote the article from scratch using secondary sources. The article in its current format is mostly work contributed by him.
I've tagged the article with {{ advert}} because I feel that the purpose of the article is, broadly, to promote the significance of the company and its achievements in its market, and to outline its value (as a publicly traded company).
Jeff Song has responded that the articles on the major competitors to Mellanox Technologies, such as Broadcom, aren't much better -- and I agree. This expands the scope of this RFC somewhat.
(1) Is the Mellanox Technologies, in its current form, acceptably neutral and encyclopedic?
(2) If not, what can be done to improve it?
(3) If not, are we obligated to the same judgment for articles such as Broadcom? What are the standards for articles on corporations and how can we enforce them?
Any comments on these questions or advice on the best course of action for improving our coverage of notable businesses is welcome. causa sui ( talk) 22:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
So I think everything is OK, leave it to develop in a natural way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 18:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the article looks like it is on the right track. There is little if any POV being taken, and at a high level this article serves to provide some basic info about the company and highlight the sensitivity of the hiring actions of the company. If other views exist, they can be added with appropriate reference. Commo soldier ( talk) 06:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Mellanox is no longer listed and traded in the TASE. It was delisted during Q3 2013. http://www.mellanox.com/page/press_release_item?id=1032
Its stocks are solely traded on the NASDAQ now.
The article and the relevant lists need to be amended to reflect that.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mellanox Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10003192/web-chip-fabless-mellanox-poised-to-raise-50m-at-company-value-of-250m.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy delete. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a complete new rewrite, from scratch, so section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion does not apply, Furthermore, this new version was first created as a draft in my user space, reviewed by experienced editors over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, and approved as satisfying notability concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Song ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but this ruffles my feathers. It is ridiculous to remove the advert tag and say I am "drive by tagging" when you know perfectly well that I am actively working on this article. Any problems that I don't feel I can solve myself will be mentioned here. In the mean time, the article still reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article, so I've restored the tag. causa sui ( talk) 17:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Mellanox Technologies was deleted by me, at AFD, as a copyvio. Jeff Song ( talk · contribs), according to his own account, rewrote the article from scratch using secondary sources. The article in its current format is mostly work contributed by him.
I've tagged the article with {{ advert}} because I feel that the purpose of the article is, broadly, to promote the significance of the company and its achievements in its market, and to outline its value (as a publicly traded company).
Jeff Song has responded that the articles on the major competitors to Mellanox Technologies, such as Broadcom, aren't much better -- and I agree. This expands the scope of this RFC somewhat.
(1) Is the Mellanox Technologies, in its current form, acceptably neutral and encyclopedic?
(2) If not, what can be done to improve it?
(3) If not, are we obligated to the same judgment for articles such as Broadcom? What are the standards for articles on corporations and how can we enforce them?
Any comments on these questions or advice on the best course of action for improving our coverage of notable businesses is welcome. causa sui ( talk) 22:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
So I think everything is OK, leave it to develop in a natural way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 18:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the article looks like it is on the right track. There is little if any POV being taken, and at a high level this article serves to provide some basic info about the company and highlight the sensitivity of the hiring actions of the company. If other views exist, they can be added with appropriate reference. Commo soldier ( talk) 06:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Mellanox is no longer listed and traded in the TASE. It was delisted during Q3 2013. http://www.mellanox.com/page/press_release_item?id=1032
Its stocks are solely traded on the NASDAQ now.
The article and the relevant lists need to be amended to reflect that.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mellanox Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10003192/web-chip-fabless-mellanox-poised-to-raise-50m-at-company-value-of-250m.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)