Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superchips

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superchips

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject seems to fail GNG. I did a Google News search, including the archives, and was unable to turn up any reliable sources covering this company. Most of the hits were for general technology articles about computer chips. There were also some hits for court documents related to this company (not adequate to establish notability), and to press releases on random websites which are primary sources (and can't be used to establish notability). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wouldn't fully rule out the possibility that the company may turn out to meet notability, but this article is too much like an advert. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in current form, use strict standards in assessing notability (i.e. still delete unless documentation meets fairly high standards) if more sourcing is found. Sourcing for this type of product is usually informed at some level by marketing and PR from the vendor, which makes it not really independent of the subject, so there should be a high bar for inclusion. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ For two reasons: firstly they meet the basic notability bar for a small company (which just isn't that hard). Secondly, and far more interestingly, they invented the concept of after-market tuning of engines, just by swapping EPROMs in the ECU. That's a big market these days, these people were the first to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is good enough to make a claim of notability which takes away the possibility of a speedy deletion, but I don't find any reliable sources discussing this company, either generally or as inventors of the concept of swapping EPROMs. Per WP:N, multiple, reliable, third-party sources are mandatory, otherwise it's just WP:OR. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Delete - I've just read the article again. It's not worth keeping. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dont see a sign of notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is unquestionably an interesting company, and probably considered significant in its field, the sources presented are primary and not primarily about the company, and Professor Google is not terribly helpful in providing sources which are. Maybe even in this day and age there are proper print sources we're not seeing? Car tuning magazines? Autocar? Guy (Help!) 18:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that when I tagged it the sources here were indeed not independent, being the company's own WWW site and a press release. The sources now are rather different, and seem to be the "proper print sources" that you're talking about. Two of them are books by MotorBooks International, for example, one of which is indeed about engine management tuning (according to its title). Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I noticed those over the weekend, but I don't do Wiki on the weekends. :-) I guess my question regarding these books is: are they actual books intended to be read, or are they just trick and tip tuning guides, similar to Chilton's or something like that? If they're real books, not directories, are these just small mentions or do these books dedicate chapters or at least multiple paragraphs to discussing this company and/or their products directly? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read them yourself and tell us. Sources are cited to be read, after all. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would but I don't own them... could whoever added them please let us know? I'm perfectly happy to AGF of whomever added them if they'd just give us a little more info. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        What about all of the book sources that the ISBN at the end of the citation links to? Uncle G (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I will adopt my usual policy of deferring to Uncle G. My impression is that the coverage in these manuals is as a kit of parts thing and not as substantial coverage, but I don't have the books, only summaries, so I cannot in the end judge. Uncle G is rarely wrong and equally unlikely to go to bat for something not worth saving. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But I also argue frequently that multiple people double-checking independently at AFD is a good thing. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.