Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SiliconExpert


 * 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 Arrow Electronics. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

SiliconExpert

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Upon taking a closer look at the sources, I found these are promotional PR by the company. Not notable enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Ramaswar (discuss) 16:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: The sources cited in the article relies heavily on press releases. Manufacturing.net, DigitalCommerce360, and ArenaSolutions are not reliable sources, even if one of the sources cites the Associated Press in its content. The article reads like an advertisement with such sources. Multi7001 (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is a notable company with a long history in the electronics and data science industries. I apologize if the article reads like an advertisement, but I will make changes to remove any promotional wording and back them up with more proper sources. I did try my best to include sources that are reputable, such as Electronic_Design_(magazine) and Manufacturing.net. But I do have more sources so I will add those in within the next 24 hours. Once those changes are made, there will be no objections, right? MWatari (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article lacks reliable sources; if credible sources can be identified and added, if they exist, then it would lessen the risk of deletion. I recommend not adding press releases to the article unless used to confirm very specific and important biographical information. Moreover, the AFD process is a collective line of discussion, so let's wait and see what other users decide. Multi7001 (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources; most of the references are press releases. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to their parent company Arrow Electronics as per WP:ATD. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep strike double !vote Thank you all for your patience. Note: Article has been updated to contain more references to support facts! Two references in regards to the partnership with Arrow Electronics. Two references regarding the parts database of SiliconExpert. And one reference on the Bill of Materials software.
 * I agree with the in-depth information *on the company*, so I've included an article from Design News that goes in-depth into the SiliconExpert product, which also includes screenshots from the software itself. Additionally, I've also supplied an article from ThomasNet (or Thomas Register), a reputable online registry for distribution and sourcing, detailing the Arrow and SiliconExpert partnership. The addition of these two articles should fulfill that requirement. MWatari (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment You might have been better served by posting the best WP:THREE links to references here because I can see you went to considerable effort. The article now has a total of 16 references and you've added 5. Here's my take on the 5 you added:
 * This from Design News is based on this PR announcement witn no additional information and a screenshot provided by one of the companies. It has nothing in-depth about this company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
 * This from Tomas is a PR announcement, it even says it, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Design News repeats the results of a survey conducted by the topic company. It has no in-depth information on the company and no "Independent Content". Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
 * This from Business Wire is a standard routine Press Release, fails ORGIND
 * This from M.net is a standard routine Press Release, fails ORGIND
 * Each reference needs to meet *all* of the criteria in NCORP, so for example, a reference that contains in-depth information provided by the company might meet CORPDEPTH but fail ORGIND. You should also understand that the criteria for using references to support facts is different and less stringent than the criteria to support notability. Also, an article that goes "in-depth" on the product but where the information was provided by the company still fails ORGIND and if it doesn't provide information *on the company* will also fail CORPDEPTH. So my take is that none of those added reference meet NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to their parent company Arrow Electronics per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Arrow Electronics per the above. BD2412  T 19:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Arrow Electronics as per HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:17, 28 October 2021 (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.