Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azuro

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 Keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Azuro

Azuro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article was brought up as a reason for keeping Intellitech, a similar organization (?). Realizing that the articles should be treated similarly, I attempted to find independent references for Azuro and could find only one, not multiple. Thus, to the best of my knowledge, Azuro also fails WP:CORP. —  X  S  G  22:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Azuro is the subject of several EEtimes article (the main newpaper in the field). See for example [1] and [2]. Also mentioned in EDN, another large news organization [3] and [4]. This one is from EE Times, Europe: [5]. So it's definitely notable. All of these are written by others, not press releases. I have added these references to the article. LouScheffer (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: All but one of the articles you've added as references are essentially press releases written by a company representative. For example:

Power reduction tool extends to 65-nm -> Azuro Enables PowerCentric for 65nm

Starc adopts Azuro's clock-tree synthesis -> STARC Adopts Azuro's Clock Tree Synthesis Solution for Ultra Low Power Methodology

Azuro Cuts Power in 65nm Digital Designs -> Azuro Enables PowerCentric for 65nm

Power-savvy tool replaces clock-tree synthesis -> Azuro unveils low power clock implementation solution

I have difficulty accepting these as independent references. If that's the consensus of other wikipedia editors, however, then I'll have a much easier time finding sources for companies requiring citations. —  X  S  G  02:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think these do qualify as independent. Usually the underlying material is the same for the press release and the article (a software release, a new customer contract, etc.). But the editor re-writes it, and they put their name on it, meaning they put their professional reputation on the line. This is basically a third party endorsement that the facts contained are basically correct. Also, this means they think it is notable in the purest (economic) sense - these publications get their revenue from advertising, so the editors must believe the information presented will be interesting to at least some fraction of their customers. LouScheffer (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There are enough sources to help expand the article. Gary King (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2008 (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.