Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriot Memory

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 no consensus. A Train^talk 17:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Memory[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Except for the Silicon Valley Business Journal which I could not read in its entirety and may not be independent, the refs are all not independent or not in-depth significant coverage. Searching turns up plenty of hits of their products for sale by retailers, but little else. WP is not a business directory. MB 20:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. The Silicon Valley reference fails WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A number of its products have in-depth reviews from a number of websites (and this is only a starting point). Engadget Aero review, Laptop Magazine Aero review, Tom's Hardware Aero review, CNET Memory review, PCGamer review of Viper 4 and Viper Elite, CNET mention as a "reputable memory maker", GamesIndustry press release mentioning work with Intel, PCGamer mention. There are probably others. I don't think this is open and shut. --Izno (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are trivia mentions (e.g. "Reputable memory makers like Patriot Memory"), or PR info supplied by the company (e.g. "Patriot has just announced", "Show full PR text"). MB 13:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable company and strictly WP:PROMO content. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neutral writing and an interesting article, with a history that reaches back into the early years of Silicon Valley and is now international. I might cut back on the dump of products. Who are competitors, and what is the business history? But overall a credit to the encyclopedia. I can't verify that there is a del-reason to discuss, so default to keep. Unscintillating (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "an interesting article" certainly isn't what we accept as by WP:What Wikipedia is not, and "neutral" is not the only necessary thing for actually accepting; the information and sources are standard WP:Wikipedia is not a guide and WP:Promo concerns therefore policy-basis for deletion and the sources are indiscriminate trade publishers who clearly incorporate press releases or elements of it, therefore not substantial coverage. This all alone would be sufficient basis, and there's also the fact one clearly promotional account started it. If we had to remove "Who are competitors and what is the business history", there literally wouldn't be anything but an A7 speedy. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, as well as being highly promotional as per WP:DEL4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews provided by Izno (talk · contribs). There are also reviews here from Computer Shopper, this article from Sina Corp (which provides two paragraphs of non-interview coverage), and this article and this article from AnandTech, the latter of which notes:
PDP Systems (www.pdpsys.com) and the Patriot brand will be a new name for some readers. However, Patriot memory has been a line at Fry's/Outpost in the past and it is also available at New Egg and other web resellers. PDP Systems was founded in California's Silicon Valley in 1985. They have manufactured memory products for the past 14 years and they are also a member of Jedec, which is the memory industry standards organization. PDP currently markets a full line of DDR and DDR2 memory products, flash memory, and ATI video cards. On a global basis, PDP has two distribution centers in California, a Mid-West sales office, a Hong Kong sales/purchasing office and a Taiwanese purchasing affiliate.
There is also an article from John M. Guilfoil in the 16 August 2009 edition of The Boston Globe titled: "Store your data in a flash ; Improved technology leads to a wide range of drives -but which suits your needs?Speed Security Durability Value". It notes:
The Globe found four flash drives that passed muster and suit different needs including speed, security, durability, and value.
Speed
Patriot Memory (a brand of PDP Systems Inc.) makes some of the best drives you can buy, and the prices can't be beaten. If you're looking for a super-fast drive that is built right and won't cost you more than you paid for old episodes of "Friends," then check out the Patriot Xporter XT Boost. The 8-gigabyte version is the best value at $19.99, but you can get the 32-gigabyte version we tested for $60.99 online.
There is also this review from PC World, where the editor wrote:
Editor's note, July 17, 2013: Patriot contacted us after this review to contend they believe the long wait for the device to connect to our wireless network could be related to the other hardware used in the evaluation. We also corrected the list price of the 1TB model tested, and we added our theory as to why exFAT drives are slower than NTFS drives when writing our single 10GB test file.
This demonstrates that the review was written independently of the company.
The subject clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guidelines.
Cunard (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2017 (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.