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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP Cores Inc.[edit]

IP Cores Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Delete The user dimawik has been putting up wiki pages all over, they all have links to products that IPcores sells. First off, the company is not notable enough to have it's own page. Second, it's products aren't either. Third, they're not the only vendor of crypto hardware. But unless they become notable (re: famous beyond just their own press releases) they don't deserve an entry in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomstdenis (talk • contribs) 2007-01-24 16:19:19

• Cautioned Delete - No clear assertion of notability, and kinda smells like spam. I'm hesitant to actually call it spam though, because the user who created it (Dimawiki (talk · contribs)) appears to contribute significant amounts of useful and appropriate information to Wikipedia regularly. There may be more to this than its face value. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of his contributions include stub articles with a link to a specific IPCores product. I also work for a hardware firm. Should I place links to are products all over Wikipedia too? No. So if I can't [nor shouldn't] do it, neither should Dimawik. Unless someone can provide some proof the company is notable (above the myriad of other hardware crypto firms) the page should be deleted. Tomstdenis 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - No argument there. No notability, no article. I'm just confused as to why someone who does actually contribute useful information would also spam; it isn't the typical M.O. of a spammer. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm not suggesting a ban on the user, though perhaps an eye should be paid to future contributions. He/she is the one posting all of the IPCores links. Most likely doesn't really even realize it's spam. I doubt there is any malicious behaviour going on here. Tomstdenis 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. I agree there seems to be no un-Wikipedoc motives behind this article's creation, but we can't have it. Shaundakulbara 07:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like just to note that the initiator of the debate Tomstdenis apparently forgot to mention that he works for Elliptic Semiconductor, one of the competitors of IP Cores. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2647 Dimawik 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So what. The moment you see me putting up vanity pages for my employer you can turn around and AfD them too. This isn't about competition, it's about removing vanity pages and link-spam (hint: ipcores links in AES, GCM, Diskencryption, etc...). Given that I personally set out to have a vanity page about myself (that I did not put up myself) removed, I think I've proven my Wikiobjectivity. Tomstdenis 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just thought that an obvious conflict of interest in this case should be visible to the participants of the discussion. My remark would be extraneous if you would have stated the existence of the conflict upfront. And no, I would not argue for taking your company page down. As you might have noticed from my profile, I have added few articles to Wikipedia. Dimawik 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Flamebait My AfD debate has merits regardless of who I work for. An article about my employer would be JUST AS inappropriate (for now I don't speak to possible future events) as an article about IP Cores. The fact that I voted to delete a vanity page about myself should be proof enough that I'm objective. By bringing up a non-existent conflict of interest argument you're just proving that there isn't anything notable about the company worth saving the page over. I suggest you read the Wiki guidelines for notability. Tomstdenis 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I am the author of the article) I think that the company is notable. If one looks, for example, into the latest market report issued by the professional publication in the intellectual property field, Design and Reuse (http://www.us.design-reuse.com/), (s)he can find that IP Cores is rated the third company in its specialty (the security cores area). Being third worldwide in one's area of expertise is notable, in my opinion. The interesting detail is that the top spot is occupied by Tomstdenis' employer, Elliptic Semiconductor - so his company is certainly notable. I can volunteer to put up an article about Elliptic, if this will help to resolve the dispute. I cannot link to the report (as most market research, it is actually sold by D&R), but feel free to contact me if you want to verify the ranking facts. Dimawik 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Convinced First off, I'm not authorized to speak for my company. I did a google for my company and I found mostly press releases by us and our partner companies. I failed to see any in depth third party reviews of the company that were not part of a commissioned work (e.g. financial survey). I also only found 16,000 hits with Google. While I think my company is doing great things and is a player in our respective field, I have trouble finding the level of notability required to interest the readers of Wikipedia. Our company has not published any academic results, nor been cited in published reports (though we do spend quite a bit of time in algorithm research phases), therefore fails the longevity requirements for notability. By that same token, I think IP Cores is also non-notable. I think you're making the classic mistake of thinking that "non-notable == bad." IP Cores is most likely staffed by very smart people (so is my company), but so are thousands of other hardware design labs. So just because I said IP Cores is not notable (within the context of Wikipedia) doesn't mean I think the company should be shunned or held in contempt. Tomstdenis 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question Does that mean you support monopoly? Because if a company is new, it might not be notable, and if it is big it is, therefore benefiting the bigger company. Granted the articles shouldn't be just spread over like myspace accounts. but if what the other guy said is true, that the company is third in it's field and has only been around three years compared to your companies six years don't they deserve a chance? i could be wrong, but I'm just pushing out this idea.
    • Repeating... Wikipedia is not geocities. It's not a place to list any company, group, person, or thing just because you feel like it. It has to actually be encyclopedic and notable. If IP Cores wants to get attention for themselves they'll have to go about it another way then posting articles about themselves [hint: Look at the name of the CTO of IP Cores and then look at the author of this article]. Suggestions: Go to conferences, give talks, write articles, do interviews in the press, get customers to do writeups, etc. Tomstdenis 22:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question But again i ask if it is a new company mabye they don't have the time to do press interviews, not enough people possibly?
    • Repeating ... again... Wikipedia is not geocities. If they're too small/new to be notable that's MORE reason to delete the page, not to keep it. I won't reply again along these lines. See notability for more information on notability requirements for Wikipedia. Tomstdenis 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced per Shaundakulbara... Addhoc 18:06, 31 January 2007 (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.