- 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. j⚛e decker talk 06:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Toradex ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert for non notable company. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I didn't expect I'd !vote to keep. The sources cited are simply worthless. They're all just plants of company press releases and similar junk. But Google books turned up this
3-page section and Google scholar turned up many references
like this one. At AfD, we consider notability, not content. Notability is determined based on whether reliable independent secondary sources exist, not whether they've been properly cited. It looks to me like they exist.
Msnicki (
talk) 02:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- In those sources I'm seeing mentions of their products but no coverage about the company. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete— Msnicki, I appreciate your efforts in doing a thorough search. This topic is relatively close to my area of expertise, though, and I'm seeing these citations in a slightly different light. The Toradex boards are certainly used widely in the academic community, but I'm not seeing any citations that discuss the boards themselves, or, more to the point here, discuss the company. Likewise, the slashgear and cnxsoft articles are reviewing particular products but don't discuss the company. Nor am I seeing enough coverage on individual products to warrant a move and/or redirect. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 08:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Notability requires not just some coverage, but "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." And as LC indicates the coverage must provide substantive coverage of the company itself. The 2011 IWANN and IFAC World Congress papers just reference some Toradex hardware and do not discuss the company at all.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. - Have made the changes as per the above discussion and used reliable resources based on the links from Books and Scholars search results.--
Ram tx (
talk 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bombarded it with more mentions and made it into more of an advert. Still no depth of coverage about the company. Still not notable and nearly a speedy delete for blatant advert. duffbeerforme ( talk) 02:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- @ Ram tx:, these kinds of citations are at best unhelpful. Here's my review of the references currently in the article.
- Kim (2009), Subject mentioned in two sentences.
- Arena (2007), Subject mentioned in a single sentence.
- Dowland (2010), Subject mentioned in a single sentence.
- Neshev (2011), A single sentence mentioning that they didn't use the Toradex product
- Moreira (2009), Four sentences and a picture of one of their boards.
- Saffer (2009), Single mention in a list, plus index entry.
- Dominguez-Morales (2011) Two paraenthetical mentions and a picture caption.
- I'll stop here. Put simply, accreting passing mentions does not establish notability, and adding these kind of passing mentions to an article is a good sign the the subject of the article is not yet notable. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 21:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Products may be notable but I'm unable to establish notability of the company. ~ KvnG 15:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete company has not received significant coverage, hence fails WP:ORG, and per editor duffbeerforme. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:55, 13 August 2014 (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.
- 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. j⚛e decker talk 06:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Toradex ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert for non notable company. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I didn't expect I'd !vote to keep. The sources cited are simply worthless. They're all just plants of company press releases and similar junk. But Google books turned up this
3-page section and Google scholar turned up many references
like this one. At AfD, we consider notability, not content. Notability is determined based on whether reliable independent secondary sources exist, not whether they've been properly cited. It looks to me like they exist.
Msnicki (
talk) 02:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- In those sources I'm seeing mentions of their products but no coverage about the company. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete— Msnicki, I appreciate your efforts in doing a thorough search. This topic is relatively close to my area of expertise, though, and I'm seeing these citations in a slightly different light. The Toradex boards are certainly used widely in the academic community, but I'm not seeing any citations that discuss the boards themselves, or, more to the point here, discuss the company. Likewise, the slashgear and cnxsoft articles are reviewing particular products but don't discuss the company. Nor am I seeing enough coverage on individual products to warrant a move and/or redirect. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 08:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Notability requires not just some coverage, but "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." And as LC indicates the coverage must provide substantive coverage of the company itself. The 2011 IWANN and IFAC World Congress papers just reference some Toradex hardware and do not discuss the company at all.-- Rpclod ( talk) 21:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. - Have made the changes as per the above discussion and used reliable resources based on the links from Books and Scholars search results.--
Ram tx (
talk 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bombarded it with more mentions and made it into more of an advert. Still no depth of coverage about the company. Still not notable and nearly a speedy delete for blatant advert. duffbeerforme ( talk) 02:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- @ Ram tx:, these kinds of citations are at best unhelpful. Here's my review of the references currently in the article.
- Kim (2009), Subject mentioned in two sentences.
- Arena (2007), Subject mentioned in a single sentence.
- Dowland (2010), Subject mentioned in a single sentence.
- Neshev (2011), A single sentence mentioning that they didn't use the Toradex product
- Moreira (2009), Four sentences and a picture of one of their boards.
- Saffer (2009), Single mention in a list, plus index entry.
- Dominguez-Morales (2011) Two paraenthetical mentions and a picture caption.
- I'll stop here. Put simply, accreting passing mentions does not establish notability, and adding these kind of passing mentions to an article is a good sign the the subject of the article is not yet notable. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 21:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Products may be notable but I'm unable to establish notability of the company. ~ KvnG 15:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete company has not received significant coverage, hence fails WP:ORG, and per editor duffbeerforme. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:55, 13 August 2014 (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.