Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mico32


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mico32
Non notable product, fails WP:CORP. LatticeMico32 gets 28 distinct Google hits. Mico32 gets 59 Ghits, many unrelated to the product. No independent professional reviews. Was prodded. Fram 17:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Information and product released to the market on Sept 18 2006. It needs a few days to get some additional traction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kphowell (talk • contribs)
 * Delete being non-notable product that doesn't meet the notability requirements in WP:CORP. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 21:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How So In what whay does it not meet the requirements? As far as low hit count 9/21/06 Google: "Results 1 - 10 of about 122 for LatticeMico32. (0.26 seconds)"  Not bad for being available for 4 days.
 * In what way? There are two criteria given for products, and it doesn't come close to any of those. It may be good enough for an article later on, but we only have articles after the fact, we don't have articles for every person, band, product, book, company, ... that may become notable one day. Look around at other Deletion discussions and you'll get an idea which companies and products get deleted. Fram 05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Article can be recreated if/when product attains widespread notability. --Alan Au 16:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice against future recreation if the core becomes notable. Normally I'd be biased in favor of anything open source, but I don't think this is established enough for an article yet. I tried downloading the software and not everything is actually open source. The proper approach is to write an article after a product gains "additional traction", not before. Wmahan. 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Can be considered a corporate product. As someone with electrical engineering background, I recognize what this product is.  Its some company's implementation of the Harvard architecture, and it fails WP:CORP for reliable sources verifying it.  Furthurmore, things like this come out all the time, and there's a mess of companies.  We need substantial proof of a company's particular product's 'notability' to warrent an article on it, and there's already articles on FPGA, Harvard architecture, and microcontroller of which microcontroller could be expanded to mention "soft" ones if proper sources can be found. --Kevin_b_er 01:09, 23 September 2006 (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.