Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WaferTech


 * 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 Merge to TSMC. (What, TSMC, a company with market cap USD 50 billion only has a puny stub? —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:42Z 

WaferTech

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was originally a db corp case, but the article was improved and the speedy tag removed (validly, I think). There's some discussion on the talk page from when it was a contested speedy. That said, there's still no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Of the four references, the first is the company's official website, the second and third tangentially mention the company's power consumption, and the fourth is broken. Nothing about this company particularly stands out. It seems to be just a boring commodity semiconductor fab, with no particularly unique features. Deranged bulbasaur 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC) "Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing agreed yesterday to buy out some of its partners in WaferTech, a joint venture that operates a wafer plant in Camas, Wash. It will pay $350 million for a 23 percent stake belonging to the Altera Corporation, $60 million for a 4 percent stake belonging to Analog Devices and $40 million for a 2.7 percent stake belonging to Integrated Silicon Solutions. All three transactions should close this month, Taiwan Semiconductor said, giving it about 97 percent ownership of WaferTech." 
 * delete nominator says it all. /Blaxthos 10:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Betaeleven 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 19:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article now has references. --Eastmain 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the NY Times link you've added doesn't really assert any notability for the company, just that it has been bought by another:
 * - Ozzykhan 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly boring, but still notable according to the published references. If the current owner paid $350 million to buy out a partner who owned 23 percent of the company, that puts a total evaluation on the business of about $1.5 billion, which is fairly impressive. And I added an additional reference, Hoover's, at http://www.hoovers.com/wafertech/--ID__113377--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml --Eastmain 03:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that mentions of that kind establish independent notability. At most, that advocates for a slight merge into TSMC since, by the sound of it, they were never an autonomous operation and are now almost totally subsumed into Taiwan Semi. Deranged bulbasaur 07:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you ask my suspicion I'd tell you that the only reason the plant hasn't been identified directly with its parent company is that associating with a foreign government tends to create negative brand implications in the domestic market. For an example, notice how British Petroleum refers to itself exclusively as "BP" in the U.S. Deranged bulbasaur 12:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just don't think that the 3 sentences in NY Times asserts the notability of WaferTech. If anything, it is adding to the notability of TSCM (who now have a $1.5 billion subsid!). At most, the WaferTech information could be merged into the TSCM article, if infact it is one of their largest assets - Ozzykhan 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article also has several other external references. WaferTech is one of the largest corporations in Clark County, Washington and a significant presence in Silicon Forest.  As far as affiliation with TSMC, maybe we could add "A TSMC Company" which shows up on their webpage.  I will do some more research and add links/entries showing their interaction with the state of Washington.  From what I understand, they are owned by TSMC and considered part of the family but are treated with some autonomy.   Rms1 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Rms1


 * 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.