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 redirect to Cypress Semiconductor. Anything worth salvaging for a possible merge is available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramtron International[edit]

Ramtron International (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)

My searches found nothing to suggest improvement, here, here, here and here, and it's probably best to redirect to Cypress Semiconductor where it is mentioned but I want to hear from others (I'm willing to close and redirect myself if needed). SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - they're notable obviously through bring F-RAM to mass market availability. This then made them a tempting target for an acquisition, which Cypress then did. However notability isn't temporary. We give readers a clearer history through a separate article. At most we'd merge this into Cypress, and then UNDUE becomes a problem to give them appropriate depth of coverage. As F-RAM becomes an increasingly important technology - mainly through the growth in smart metering - we shouldn't shrink our coverage of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as promotional. The distinguishing feature here is the sections 2 "F-RMA Technology" & section 3, "F-RMA Technology Benefits." This is typical wording of a web age or an advertisement. It has no place in an encycopedia article, because a link does it just as well. Nobody would write it who was trying to describe the company for an encyclopedia. To be sure, we could eliminate it , but it's time we started actually rejecting promotional articles of this sort. Notability is not the only reason for rejection. G11applies if its so promotional it couldn't easily be rewritten, but we can delete here for any reason. The only way to stop this sort of editing is to delete the articles. If the company is important enough, someone with a neutralPOV will write the article--such as Andy. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. If you think something needs copy-editing, then just go right ahead and do it. There is no virtue to deleting it first. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - AfD allows for deleting articles where they are simply promotional. About the only 2 items in this entire article which are not promotional are the first sentence, and the two sentences about the merger. I'd say merge that info into Cypress Semiconductor, but then that would be giving WP:UNDUE to this one company above the others. So simply delete. Nothing in the searches shows that this company, as a separate entity meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"About the only 2 items in this entire article which are not promotional " Did you read the same article as the rest of us? I can see how a reader unfamiliar with F-RAM might question the significance of this article, but there's nothing over-promotional about it out of line with other articles on companies. Being about a company does not make an article implicitly promotional in tone. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / Redirect over to Cypress Semiconductor given that the firm doesn't seem notable outside of its relationship with that larger company CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2015 (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.