Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultratech, 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ultratech, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I went ahead and redirected Arthur W. Zafiropoulo to this article (I almost AfD'd that article as well) as my searches as mentioned there found no evidence of good independent notability and I'm also questioning the notability of this as my searches here, here, here and here and here no considerably good coverage with probably the best shot of notability being the NASDAQ position. I'm also not seeing a good move target from the currently listed articles. SwisterTwister  talk  06:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I'm seeing some marginally significant coverage in the HighBeam results. Since this company has been around since the 1980s, web searches are not going to give a good picture so we need to err on the side of generosity here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Being on NASDAQ has always been considered insufficient for notability ,so it doesn't matter how well it has been proven. The remainder of the material on Highbeam is either routine legal notices or press releases in trade journals--nothing on that page seems to be a reliable source for notability. I agree with Kvng thatconsidering the size of the company one might haver expected something better, but it doesn;t seem to be there.  Seeking Alpha might be the best of the sources, but reading the excerpt it says "if FinFET-related annealing orders eventually do appear in 2015 and the 3D advanced ..." Since that's from 2015, the conclusion is not yet notable.  DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Delete Article is currently all based on WP:SPS nothing notable about this company covered in relevant media - this is really just a directory entry and WP:NOTDIRECTORY.  Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 9 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.