Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linear Corporation


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Linear Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. I have found a few minor pieces with passing mentions in industry specific websites, but not much else to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * *Comment That's interesting. This company is 50 years old and products you own likely includes technology created by this company.  The fact that you can't find anything on it "online" means little.     Jcline0 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC).


 * *Comment In that case, perhaps you can provide some citations to some reliable sources to establish notability? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * *Comment Perhaps there's some confusion here relating to the legal entity. The URL is linearcorp.com and it is referred to as "Linear LLC", maybe due to subsidiary status. This company is different than "Linear Technology" and "MaxLinear". Jcline0 (talk)


 * Book source 1 on Google Books, book source 2, keep. Andrevan@ 06:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The first book you have listed does not show any reference to Linear Corporation in the link you provided. The second appears to only have a passing reference to it.  Google Books does turn up dozens of listings for similar names of, "Linear Technology Corporation" and "Micro Linear Corporation."  Are these the same organization?  Or just similarly named? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears to me the two additional corporations which google books turns up a lot of links for are actually different companies. One of them already has a Wikipedia article:  Linear_Technology and the other does not .  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe the 2nd reference is a reference to this article's subject. Jcline0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment Similarly this reference is to Linear LLC in Forbes Jcline0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 00:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Existing sources prove that the company existed. Existance is not the baseline for inclusion of an article at Wikipedia.  There is no depth of coverage that I can find, nor have any extensive sources been provided by those who created the article, or who wish to see it kept.  -- Jayron  32  00:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Doing a google news search I found a couple hits for the company mentioned in LA Times and NY Times, both reliable sources. Two of the articles would, IMHO, talk about the company significantly enough to warrant it having significant coverage. That being said it is debateable if it has lasting notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete 's book source 1 is promotional, and book source 2 is a passing mention. 's Forbes source is press release from PR Newswire. The New York Times articles mentioned by are also passing mentions. In short, there is a lack of non-trivial reliable coverage for this company. Goodvac (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.