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. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intellitech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article lacks multiple reliable and independent sources to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Since nothing much has changed since the first nomination, I do not see the reason why the opinion would be changed now. Article needs updates though --Plaxie (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You're right, nothing has changed since the first nomination, because this article is still mostly sourced to the company's own website. I can't find multiple reliable independent sources to support it. If you can, that's great - please add them in or share them here. Otherwise if the company has been running for 31 years and has had an article for over a decade, it's reasonable to question its notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find additional sources, though the company operates in a specific field probably not covered by mainstream media. What I found is that they indeed have set some standards for testing of integrated circuits accepted by IEEE. --Plaxie (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Company of 216 employees with $43m revenues is already small, so they need to have very notable products, but they don't. Almost nothing turns up on WP:BEFORE, and most online references really trade/PR releases for the company, so fails NCORP and NPRODUCT. No major WP:RS of which they are the main subject.

The discussion at the 2008 AfD was of poor quality in my view, and some of the refs quoted would not pass now (they are really primary, being PR releases in lower tier publications). Other arguments were really ILIKEIT (it was a "no consensus" case - at best). Can't see this surviving long-term on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of sources necessary to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2019 (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.