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. Sourcing seems quite well.explored and is below the bar. If someone wants to pursue draftifying or a merge somewhere please drop me a line Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maia (verification language) (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)

No evidence of notability as required by WP:GNG. Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see some sources, but nothing that looks like it would unambiguously clear GNG. Mccapra (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since I wrote the article: it's a stub, with less than 500 words, including lists. If you feel that's too much, I can take some out, but it appears to be within the limits at WP:STUBDEF. I used the guidelines at WP:N, which state (among other things) that "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet". I wrote the stub because I'm an engineer and use both hardware description and verification languages daily, and a stub seemed appropriate: it will hopefully encourage others (who known more) to expand on it, with sources. We should also consider that over-zealously enforcing notability guidelines on stubs could simply ensure that no stubs are ever written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EML101 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just name a few sources that establish WP:GNG here, and you can take as long as you wish to add them to the stub. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are fine if they’re sourced. WP:STUBDEF emphasises the importance of sources and says ‘If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article.’ A company or productise own website can’t be used as a source to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• MAIA: a framework for networks on chip generation and verification 2005 (ACM) seems to be the main paper on the framework.
• Maia EDA Launches New Automated Verification Tool on BusinessWire.
• Maia EDA readies functional verification tool on EE Times, assume that's short for Electrical Engineering.

There doesn't seem to be much else. I'd say notability was at best marginal. Why not merge to Hardware verification language and turn that into a decent article, the topic there is certainly notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The EE Times and businesswire refs are copies of a press release originally published on PR Newswire. The same press release was published on other sites[1][2][3][4][5] and contains the usual promotional language.

The reference to ASP-DAC '05: Proceedings of the 2005 Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference January 2005 Pages 49–52 at https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1120725.1120741 is legit. Not quite enough to show notability, though. Related: [ http://maia-eda.net/history ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2020 (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.