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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nallatech[edit]

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

Non notable company with no references to show otherwise. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the few articles I can't remember starting or why I started it, but looking in google books [1] it meets GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I accept that their products are widely used--the refs DrB now added are just some of what is available. I'd be willing to withdraw the afd. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fully expand it but most of it is computer jargon to me and one of the subjects I detest the most. But that and Scottish Equity Partners are definitely notable and meet GNG. SEP at present looks like possible COI and needs a great overhaul, but deletion isn't the solution for either.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a bit of content. The article could use work. Since the article was started the company became a subsidiary of Interconnect Systems Inc. It would probably be better to move this article to a section of an article on the parent. The article could use dates throughout to clearly distinguish past products etc. from present. Maybe some brave editor could convert the hype into simpler descriptions of product functionality and differentiation. But those are quality concerns. After wading through the press releases there are still easily enough independent sources to remove any question about notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be acceptable to move it to Interconnect Systems and evolve into a section on the larger company? That might be more likely to survive. I did notice that although there is no article yet here, there are a bunch of companies with similar names. The relevant one seems this one ? The article does indeed use jargon like "microchip" which should be integrated circuit and repeats a few things, so if cleaned up would be even tinier. W Nowicki (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are three questions. Is Nallatech notable, in the sense that a number of independent sources have taken note of the company? Should the article be improved? Should it be moved to a larger article on the parent company? The immediate question is whether Nallatech is notable. After that has been agreed and this discussion closed, clean-up and move can and should proceed. I would not see a need for the formality of a requested move. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, I suspect that more readers would vaguely recognize the term "microchip" than would recognize "integrated circuit" (or "micro-integrated circuitry" as people of my generation prefer to style it). Few readers would be able to explain what either was, and very few would be able to explain the difference. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, off topic. The advantage of using technically correct terms with a wikilink, is that those typical readers who do only vaguely recognize the term could click on integrated circuit and read that article to determine if it is what they think. I would also claim that if you asked a random read to buy some "chips" that it would be very unlikely they would get their product from Nallatech :-) in fact, here in Silicon Valley one would get something different than, say, the UK. That is why chip is a disambiguation page. I know the "proscriptive vs descriptive" debate, but we should use precise terminology as much as possible and avoid such ambiguity. Along the similar lines, saying it sells solutions is horribly misleading - follow that link. Anyway, as above I would vote to keep and move. I did a few minor fixes already but plenty of other work to do in case you toss it. W Nowicki (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some think of a microchip as a potato serving at the sort of restaurant that sells dietary solutions, but most think of it as one of those computer things thing in their credit card or phone. Microchip redirects to Integrated circuit, although the chip and the circuit are not quite the same. For some reason the RCA/EELM Program Control and Arithmetic Unit, which might fit on a microchip, does not redirect to CPU... Keep and move works for me. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - EE Times and EDN articles establish notability. ~KvnG 21:58, 25 August 2013 (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.