Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presto Engineering, Inc.


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Presto Engineering, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unreliable sources for notability  DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I contact you because I'd like to have some information concerning the proposition of deletion. In fact, I don't understand why you nominated this page for the deletion, considering that it's a page which has been created just two weeks ago, and that I cannot add every day some new sources and references. When I created the page concerning the company, I thought following the rules and standards of Wikipedia. And if it was not the case, the page would have been deleted.

As a new user of Wikipedia, I met some issues with the content, but I removed and replaced some parts in order the page to be published. It has been approximately more than a week that many contributors work on the page, modify it and contribute therefore that the page matches with Wikipedia's expectations. Honestly, I do not understand why did you say that there were "unreliable sources for notability" while I'm trying to put most of references from well-known microelectronics reviews concerning the field and activities of the company.

In addition, I've just checked the page dedicated to the nomination of articles for deletion. It is written within the part "before nominating" especially in the part C (Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted) that if the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. Beside, it is also written within the part D (Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability) which is the main concern on which the page has been nominated for deletion, that

"If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern."

Considering this fact, I suggest that we would work in tandem in order to fix this minor issue (the lack of reliability of some sources) instead deleting the page. Anyway, I'm really up for discussion and delete some parts of the content, add some notable sources or whatever :)

Thanks in advance for your help,

Sincerely yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.dauce (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- this content belongs on the corporate web site; Wikipedia is not a product brochure or an office locator. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I am very surprised to see your comment concerning the Wikipedia page of Presto Engineering.

-Firstly because I do not agree with the fact that the content belongs on the corporate website. In fact, I would suggest that you'll visit the corporate website, thus you could see that the written content of the Wikipedia page is totally different from the website. As a matter of fact, I truly followed the rules and standards of Wikipedia and thereby, the content of the Wikipedia page is unique and it is not a copy of another website. Anyway, if the content had been the same, it would be deleted.

-Then, because I also disagree with you concerning the fact that the page I wrote is a product brochure or an office locator. Wikipedia is a support of information, and only information. Therefore, while I was writing this page, I was totally aware of this fact. And that is the reason why the page is not a promotional support, promotional content or whatever and that the page has not been deleted automatically. Moreover, it's written in the Wikipedia policy that I can write a page concerning a company as long as there is no promotional content. And I reckon that it is really the case because anybody mentioned the page as promotional content or marketing support before. And I do not understand why you try to remove my page while some others contain a real promotional content on their pages (in example, just take a look to Open-silicon).

-Finally, I'm just trying to summarize the activities of Presto Engineering through an objective point of view (being not an employee of the company but just someone who knows about the business field and the main activities of thereof). And as many other companies did, I was thinking that Presto Engineering could have a Wikipedia page describing the business and the activities through a neutral perspective, based on the same model and framework than eSilicon or Verisilicon (take a look about these companies, which are not deleted because as the Presto's page, there are just a neutral description of the business and the activities).

Last but not least, the page was not submitted to the deletion for an issue concerning a promotional content or marketing support but because there was apparently a lack of reliable sources for notability (but the sources I put mainly came from well-known microelectronics reviews), and I'd greatly appreciate if we could work together to fix this minor issue. Let me know if you have some comments and thanks in advance.

Sincerely, T.dauce (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether user:T.Dauce intended it this way or not, this is clearly promotional material. Of the sources given, they are (in order): A blog that barely mentions the article subject in passing, a repackaged press release, two YouTube videos, another blogged press release, a roundtable discussion that involved an engineering VP from the company, another blogged press release, one paragraph in a industry show summary, and three more passing mentions. To summarize: So far, this company has not been shown to generate to anything more than minimal coverage in reliable, independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 16 December 2016 (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.