Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPIA

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. Sandstein 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EPIA

EPIA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - The page is corporate marketing. VIA design and manufacture chipsets. EPIA is a marketing term for distribution of their chipsets to retail. So EPIA is not really a product, as such. I had edited this page and redirected to VIA_chipsets, putting mention of the EPIA marketing brand on the chipsets page, but user User:MureninC called this 'vandalism' and reverted. Unless a corporate marketing brand is notable, and EPIA is certainly NOT NOTABLE in terms of overall x86 market share, I really don't see why it should be allocated a separate page, when it could be slotted into an existing one, already dealing with said products. Is the WIKI here to recycle corporate press releases? Timharwoodx 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. EPIA is a series of mainboards that is very popular in the embedded market, it has nothing to do with marketing, and certainly, it is not at all related to marketing of chipsets. Claim about EPIA being "not really a product" is unfounded and downright malicious. Claim about the article being "corporate marketing" is ungrounded, for example, I've personally added a criticism section to the article describing some problems with the platform. Claim about unpopularity is misrepresented, as many models of EPIA mainboards are available from newegg.com for some time already. Also, notice that several other wikipedia.org sites already feature this article under its own name, and article on en.wikipedia.org existed since 2004. All in all, this nomination is ill-informed at best. MureninC 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

MureninC violates WIKI guidelines by failing to declare himself as the primary author / sponsor of the page. What I said was in terms of overall x86 market sales volume, EPIA is insignificant - probably less than 1% of the market. The fact its listed on some internet website, does nothing to address that fact. If listing on some shopping engine is criteria for WIKI inclusion, then WIKI becomes a parts database. EPIA really is more or less irrelevant to the overall PC market - which is why its not notable. MureninC again demonstrates his total inability to differentiate between marketing and products. VIA make chipsets, the EPIA brand is reference design for marketing of the chipsets. To try and settle this, lets see what VIA has to say about this shall we?

• http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDYy

Richard Brown (VIA's Director of International Marketing): We also have an EPIA reference design that integrates the Envy24PT.......

There you have a direct quote from VIA's Director of International Marketing, referring to EPIA not as a product, but as a 'reference design.' So even VIA's own staff say EPIA is not actually a product - its a marketing tool. Yet MureninC is convinced he knows best, and VIA's Director of International Marketing has it all wrong. Do we really have to take this debate any further? Surely VIA's Director of International Marketing can be taken as an authoritative source on whether EPIA is a marketing brand or a product? What other source would anyone care to nominate? Timharwoodx 12:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Timharwoodx, please stop your ungrounded accusations. I've merely edited the article once (main contribution being a new Criticism section), and my edit was more than two years after the article was created by somebody else. Everyone, Timharwoodx has already used personal attacks against me because I've put some cleanup and split tags on the article he claims to have contributed to (VIA C3). After he noticed the tags, he started his personal attacks on the talk page of VIA C3 article, talk page of my profile, then he removed the cleanup tags and the split tags I've created, and started calling me names in his edit summaries against my edits: [1] (whereas the links are present in Template:VIA, section See also refers to the immediately useful links, but Timharwoodx failed to see that, and started calling names) and [2] (clearly, VIA C7 is intended for embedding market, and people want to know the Average TDP much more than they are interested in the Maximum TDP (specifically because Average TDP on VIA C7 is over 1000% lower than the maximum TDP), but instead of creating a new column or renaming existing one, Timharwoodx just removes my contributions and starts calling names again). Timharwoodx, please stop using personal attacks as a way to accomplish your agenda. (As far as Richard Brown goes, I don't think there is a need for any comments on his statement, as it is clearly taken out of context. If Paul Otellini says that they have a reference design of motherboards or networking adapters, does it mean that Intel doesn't produce motherboards and networking adapters? Clearly not.) MureninC 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article looks fine, if a little thin, and Google makes it pretty clear this is an established brand name.[3] NicM 23:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

MureninC You added numerous factual errors to the VIA section. For example, I had a column labeled 'max TDP', and you added 'average' TDP figures. You should have created a new column. Its not for me to go around tidying up your mangled broken English edits all the time. If you want to add average TDP, and I don’t disagree with that because it is useful and relevant information, add your own column, and do it yourself. But you'd need to collect it for all of the C3 processors, not just the C7, otherwise the table becomes broken as a form of comparative analysis, which is its main purpose. But you can't add average TDP to the max TDP column. Thats nonsense, as its not the same thing at all, which is why I had to delete it! Also, you were utterly confused about the C3 not understanding it was originally a WINCHIP product bought by VIA, and they swapped cores, while keeping the same marketing name. I object to someone calling my work 'one of the worst pages in the WIKI' and then riddling it with factual errors, not present in my drafts. So in fact, you started the insults, if we go over it. This is a deletion page, and it looks like EPIA will stay, I respect the community voice in any matter, but I hope you've learned not to call someone elses work 'one of the worst pages in the WIKI' - as that tends to generate a response, especially when your edits are, so often, utter nonsense, in oftentimes broken English. Anyways, you should have declared yourself as a sponsor as the EPIA page. That was a guidelines violation. Timharwoodx 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Intel don't produce motherboards, they produce processors and chipsets. So again, you validate my point with your analogy. You lack a technical understanding of the subject matter - its very obvious. Companies like ASUS, ABIT, MSI, etc, make the motherboards. Look at your PC boot screen sometime! Do some google searches. You might learn something. NVIDIA do not produce graphics cards. They make graphics chips, which third party companies turn into graphics cards. There are exceptions, 3DFX sought to make their own cards, and ATI have in periods, but normally the chip companies do not make the cards / moptherboards themselves. This is basic stuff indeed, that you clearly just don't have a clue about. I'm not here to act as your personal tutor, but if you don't understand a topic, please don't edit in it! EPIA is not really a product, its a brand for VIA chipsets, and thats completely true. So it should be an aside on the chipsets page i.e. 'this chipsets is branded as EPIA platform xxxx by VIA. Timharwoodx 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Timharwoodx, everyone but you lacks a technical understanding - this is very obvious. How could you possibly live in a world of such ignorant individuals like all of us? It must be terrible! You should seriously consider opening a new wikipedia where only the privileged like yourself would have the authority to edit the articles. No marketing bullshit, no articles about stuff that does not exist, everything on as little number of pages as possible. Great idea, isn't it? Yours free! :) MureninC 15:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep FirefoxMan 22:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Even without the capital letters and boldface, the above discussion is sufficient to show that they are indeed notable, and I am a little puzzled about the reasons of those wanting to delete.DGG 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is a bit on the thin side, but still appears to be notable nonetheless. Yamaguchi先生 02:24, 15 December 2006 (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.