Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toradex (3rd nomination)


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Toradex
AfDs for this article: •  Deletion review – 23 April 2015
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still not notable. Still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is press releases, primary, blogs, passing mention. Last 2 afds found no suitable coverage and a search found nothing since then. A look at some of the current sourcing claimed to be independent reliable sources:
 * EFYTimes, press releases, see quote "Visit us at http://www.toradex.com and get to know more about our products & services. We believe in building long term partnerships where ever we go.".
 * CNXSoft, personal blog, see quote "I aim to share some of my knowledge though this blog and possibly learn from others as well.".
 * This Week Bangalore, press release, see the quote "Press Release".
 * gizmag, repost of someone else's content, lacks any depth if coverage about the company.
 * EE Herald, press release, see quote "Source: Toradex".
 * APN News, press release, compare it with This Week Bangalore.
 * ARM? who? that goes to a disambiguation page? How about the link? Just a company listing.
 * Freescale, just a listing, nothing independent.
 * Microsoft, blogs.msdn.com, "Partner Spotlight", not independent.
 * The Qt Company, "Technology Partners", not independent

This is an advert created by the company for SEO. It's bombarded with bad sources to make it look good. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk   15:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with nom - everything I looked at was either directly from the company's site, a press release, or an article that took most content verbatim from the press release. There is clearly a lot of pressure to keep this article on WP, and the main editor appears to have a COI. The sources, numerous though they are, are not ones that would confer notability as per WP:CORP. Note that links to this article have been created in various WP articles so some cleanup around this company page will be needed if this article is delete. For reference: Computer-on-module, Pico-ITX, Tegra, Computer module, XScale. On some of these, Toradex was introduced by adding an unnecessary photo to the page with Toradex in the caption. LaMona (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:GNG The article in the discussion has a good external reference links along with decent media coverage. Jonathan(talk) 11:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC) — Jonathan_Koller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This user has made less than a dozen edits, including this one. LaMona (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has been updated with new notable links WP:IRS taken from Electronics Weekly, Electro Pages, EDN, PHYS, EECatalog, Shab.ch (Swiss Govt Site) etc. Moreover, many company, PR, and blog links have been replaced with media coverage links. WP:NPOV The article content has undergone extensive rewriting to now include more citations during the 2nd AFD with no space for advert. With this WP:EP Strong Keep You can vote only once Sunil (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) User:Suniltx is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.
 * 15 links were added as references to the list of products, and now we have list-cruft. Adding MORE references does not help the article and one can't expect reviewers to look at 30 links, of which a majority add no new information. Also, I have to note that while the name of the company is given in the display form of nearly all of the URLs listed here, those display forms are descriptions provided by the editor and are NOT the titles of the articles list. For example, the display of link #14 is given as "Toradex's claim of a 22 EUR ARM system-on-module at Embedded World 2015", while the actual article title is "Smart implementations and innovations of embedded technology at Embedded World 2015" and Toradex is given 3 sentences. The standard for URL-based citations is to include either just the URL or to add information such as the title. It is not appropriate, AFAIK, to "editorialize" within the citation. Some of the replaced links do not support the data in the page. In any case, what this article says is that the company exists, it has participated in some normal events for such a company, and it has products. There is nothing encyclopedic about this. It is possible that there is information in the articles about the products that could be added that would be significant, but that's not what we've got here. What I see are product announcements, which again are "business as usual." LaMona (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, The article was nominated for deletion for "Still not notable. Still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is press releases, primary, blogs, passing mention". As compared to previous media coverage, this article has cited with more independent reliable sources that have made passing mentions on Toradex such as Electronics Weekly (News Paper), ECE (Magazine), Electro Pages, EDN, PHYS, EECatalog, Shab.ch (Swiss Govt Site), etc. These sources provide the basis for the information available in this article. The titles of the reference sources have just been altered to give a better understanding on what actually the link is speaking about. Embedded World is the world’s largest annual event of its kind in the embedded industry and is held each year at Nuremberg, Germany. As per WP:RS and WP:ORG guidelines the citations are enlisted. With this WP:EP I still vote to Keep You can vote only once the article on Wikipedia. Sunil (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again Sunil is lying about sources. EDN? "The EDN Network is an electronics community for engineers, by engineers" so not a reliable source. Electronics Weekly? Ref#19, actual title is "German firm runs ARM processor-based supercomputer in Leipzig" not "Toradex ARM-based computer module with Samsung’s Exynos 5 Dual processor for mobile devices" as Sunil originally claimed. It's not about Toradex and only gives them a passing mention. electropages? Ref#24, actual title is "Data Modul – Cost-efficient ARM carrier board" not " Toradex Cost-efficient Colibri carrier board" as Sunil originally claimed. Ref#25, actual title is "Data Modul – New 7-inch industrial panel PC offers widescreen format", not "Toradex Colibri modules with various performance classes" as Sunil originally claimed. Both are short product announcements from Data Modul, not independent reliable source, see Submit PR. At least the deception about the titles has been fixed. PHYS? "How NVIDIA's Tegra processor can help land a plane in an emergency" article supplied by NVIDIA, not independent, only has a passing mention of Toradex. EECatalog, straight up press release. Shab.ch? just a listing, not an independent reliable source.
 * The same pattern from the previous afds continues. A shill bombards the article with bad sources, turning it into more of an advert and then claims that the article has been rewritten. Absolute Bull. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's try to keep it civil here. The facts should speak for themselves. User:Suniltx (who is the author of the article) actually states that "... independent reliable sources that have made passing mentions ... " which defeats their argument for notability, since passing mentions do not support notability. To support notability, I would suggest that Suniltx, who should know the sources well, point out the ones that are 1) independent and 2) more than a passing mention. Thank you. LaMona (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article includes many sources which cover the article information (notability) along with passing mentions. During the previous edit the article has cited with a few more resources as mentioned in my last comment. Ref #19 has an actual title nothing was claimed, #24 and #25 has covered about Toradex modules, EECatalog is a Magazine. If there are problematic links in the article trim them down, but the article should stay. Sunil (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Delete per Duffbeerforme and LaMona.Fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article doesn't even mention the company's Apalis standard which has enough sourcing available beyond the already WP:GNG sourcing. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * sourcing for apalis would make apalis notable but not inherited by the company. Not that you've supplied any sourcing for apalis. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep You can vote only once The article has few independent sources to pass GNG which satisfies basic notability criteria as per WP:Reliable with sufficient references. Jonathan(talk) 06:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom and LaMona and Pharaoh. Should be deleted either because of lack of notability or for its clear advertising.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:36, 25 August 2015 (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.