Talk:SiliconBlue Technologies

to: Lectonar Silicon Blue is the 6th FPGA vendor at this time, there is no info about it, or its products at wikipedia, what is not right, the first 5 companies are represented, the 6th Silicon Blue and 7th Acronix are not

both those companies have products that in some feature areas are superior compared to the others, Silicon Blue is ultra low power operation at <10 microamper, Acronix is ultra fast 1.5GHz fabric speeds


 * The argument you are using is called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; you'll have to provide references. Lectonar (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How many references are needed ?
 * The company introduced their products middle 2008, and there are not so many references, in my opinion the existing references should be enough to prevent the page from speedy deletion. There are more publications available but i only selected one per publisher —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trioflex (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Silicon Blue is a new company with a notable product in the FPGA market. They offer parts intended for use in handheld units with very low power, very small size and low prices.  This is a market where no FPGA has been able to compete before due to the nature of FPGAs typically being more expensive than a custom product doing the same task.  Extremely low power makes their product distinct and competitive.
 * Certainly their presence in the FPGA market with a goal of making a product for a new target area makes them worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuarm (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I would suggest more sources, focus on Wikipedia defined reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, journals, books, and the like. But not press releases or anything that is not independent of the company. Also ensure they provide more than trivial coverage, as in the article is about the company and is more than a few sentences. As to the rest of the argument, I'm going to be a bit blunt: blah, blah, blah. Please read this guideline on what is a notable company to Wikipedia. We do not care that a company is new, it is not Wikipedia's role to create notability in companies. We allow companies that are already notable, so if its not there yet, come back when it is. And our measure for this is the amount of notice other people have made of the company as demonstrated through the coverage of the media. So we don't care how wonderful the products are or what market they are in, or where they rank in that market; we only care about if the media has taken notice of the company. On a side note, if you work for the company, also see WP:COI. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not work for the company. Yes I have read the COI rules. I have strong interest in advanced technologies, and have it for many good decades. So if something new comes up, I try to knowledgeable about it. I have maybe not been able to add as much content as it is required, but I did not expect that it is required to be all provided at once. The technology and components and tools are pretty new, so I assume there are not many around who could actually add content at this time, except me. I do currently work with the products and do know them, and tools that are needed to work with, and I will add more technical content. As of matter of noteability I would say one of the early FPGA's and the company making them should also be in Wikipedia, the FPGA was ERA6000 made by Plessey, I am one of not so many who still has an ERA6K emulation pod in his treasury box. The noteability of ERA6000 would be that is was closest ever to nonvolatile ASIC, as the all fabric was NAND2 and routing, nothing else.

Trioflex (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The critique of references in the article is harsh. The first two at least are not straight rehashes of company PR. Clive Maxfield in particular is a respected EE journalist. I would like to see the author flesh out why their business and technology is notable (as indeed Clive Maxfield does). I don't believe speedy deletion can be justified. Jeremybennett (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What critique? The suggestion was for more sources and an example of those that are acceptable for notability purposes. No mention of those already in use. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point on your comment. And I meant criticism of the lack of references, not critique! I was trying to line up under Lectonar's comment. Now I've looked at date and times and realize that the article has changed since he/she made his comment. So my comment was completely irrelevant. I'm still getting the hang of Wikipedia :-) Jeremybennett (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with the critisisms of this article. The claims are based on speculative information. In particular:

1. The only REAL information on power consumtion available is entirely based on SiliconBlue documentation. EETimes HAS NOT independantly confirmed the power consumption of the largest iCE device. I will edit this sentence so it does not sound like a statement of fact.

2. I have been unable to find anything concrete about unit pricing as SiliconBlue's distribution chain is far from established. The link referred to in this article (6. Morris, Kevin (July 03, 2008). "New Kid in Class". FPGA and Structured ASIC Journal. Techfocus Media, Inc.) is broken. I have emailed SiliconBlue in an effort to find out their budgetary pricing at least. Cook.gj (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge with iCE (FPGA)
I suggest that SiliconBlue Technologies be merged with iCE (FPGA), to form the basis of a "History" section.

The article has had a notability notice on it since 2009, and the content of the article is mostly related to the iCE products. I don't see there being enough content for a full SiliconBlue Technologies article, but there would be enough for the suggested "History" section. LiamMcS (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)