Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IC Manage

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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IC Manage[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion, apparently been deleted once before as well. Non notable business that provides design data management solutions to semiconductor companies for managing their IC design databases. Advertising and neutrality issues: they provide "solutions". (That non-neutral sales patter really grinds my gears, in case you hadn't noticed.) References don't really show historical or cultural significance of the kind that makes for long term historical notability. The outside references are to obscure trade publications with small audiences. They record the introduction of product lines [1][2] or would appear to be testimonials on rather informal and blog-like or newsletter sites [3][4]. Not sure these references get to technical significance either, and nothing I found on Google News Archive looks more promising either. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IC Manage - Remedies Made, plus Background on sources cited

Hi Ihcoyc,

Added 8-17-10: Correction: I thought the page was deleted before but it was actually just cut to a stub page. That's when I first got involved and modified the page.

Original: I have now changed the IC Manage Wikipedia page and done the research to address some of your comments.

There seem to be 2 main elements that you are asking me to address:

A. Remedy page to Wikipedia standards.

Below are the changes I made to the page today:

1) Replaced Solutions with software.

2) The electronic design automation industry term for this technology area is “Design Data Management”, so I kept that term. Have been debating whether adding a Wikipedia section on this would help with understanding – there are both commercial and open source solutions. Thoughts?

3) Deleted uncited Perforce reference. The last person that deleted the section suggested commentary on Perforce, but it was hard finding a third party reference.

4) In addition to existing articles focused on IC Manage, added citation to general article on global design management (ie not company-specific) that contained content on IC Manage technology. Added cited statement from Nvidia that they used IC Manage to help design over 100 production chipsI did not put this originally as I was concerned it sounded ‘promotional’ but added it now to help show you noteworthiness in the use of the technology. I would greatly appreciate you input as to if helps or hurts to have it there.

B. Noteability.

Per Wikipedia’s notability section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, which I have been using for my entries: 1) Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. 2) An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

If you will click on all the company products on these 2 revision control software pages below, I would argue that the IC Manage’s page adheres to Wikipedia standards more than any of them. I didn’t click on several, but not all companies there, but I believe IC Manage may be the only company where all the facts in the article had independent, 3rd party sources cited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revision_control_software

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software

You also commented on the naturesources cited and the size of their audience, so I researched this area also. IC Manage is part of the Electronic Design Automation (EDA) is a ~$5 billion industry. Because EDA is business to business industry rather than a consumer one, Technology from even the largest public companies such as Synopsys and Cadence is covered by focused trade journals rather than the WSJ and NYT. (Similar most business-to-business IT technology). There are over 300 companies in the space, with virtually no advertising support and thus limited staff to cover content. Thus getting coverage in the Electronic trades journal is unusual – and noteworthy.

The 3 sources I used meet Wikipedia’s criteria for independence are all read worldwide. I found information on them and their circulation:

EETimes. 10 million page views per month . 536,000 print and digital edition subscribers

http://mediakit.eetimesgroup.com/media-products/ee-times/

EDN. Combined Total Reach: 244,843, Average Monthly Page Views: 503,171

http://www.edn.com/file/2449-2009_DN_Media_Kit_Final.pdf?force=true

Deepchip. Deepchip is part of the EETimes family of publications mentioned above. Deepchip focuses on contributed technology papers from semiconductor hardware (chip) designers, equivalent to a conference user tracks where designers submit articles/papers on different software tools for consideration for publication – every single accepted articles have been heavily vetted for data and content. Deepchip was under construction/remodel when you looked at it so I can understand the immediate first impression you were left with. (it is now mostly complete, if you want to visit the homepage. Since Deepchip started in the 90’s the site editor still chooses to keep a Craigslist style font.)

As with most publications these days, Deepchip has a combination of serious technical/factual articles and blogs/viewpoint. But the two type are clearly distinguished in the titles: ‘ESNUG Items’ are contributed technology articles, and ‘Wiretaps’ are viewpoint/blogs. But here are 2 examples of technical articles (written intentionally in first person, with supporting hard data, as required by the site editor. (unrelated to IC Manage, but just to help understand the website).

Microsoft: http://www.deepchip.com/items/0482-06.html

Qualcomm: http://www.deepchip.com/items/0485-07.html

I know Wikipedia doesn’t allow blogs as sources (as they should not), so I only source the technical articles from that site. Deepchip content has been cited by other electronic design publications, in public company quarterly conference calls, and even in at least 1 public company press release that I found. I can send you the content.

If I can answer any further questions, please let me know.

Thanks,

Mukis (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My personal take on these business articles is that too much time is spent counting sources and readership, and not enough evaluating what they say. I would not have started any deletion process on this article if the text contained sourced statements that, in plain English, suggested that this business had created something that a student of the history of chip design two centuries out would want to know about.

All we learn from the history section of this article is that this business introduced the beta version of its commercial design data management software system, and that it announced its Global Design Platform (GDP) design data management system. Even if these were radical, innovative products of the kind to make their mark through the centuries, the vague and inappropriate tone of this publicist's language make them look like routine announcements of product lines. If you can't, within the scope of reasonable neutrality, show me how this business stands out from the crowd and has made history in its field, it probably isn't an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

I would like to add additional background info. This discussion is important as it impacts 100s of pages associated with Electronic Design Automation, plus dozens associated with revision control as shown above.

I cited the audience size of the referenced sources specifically to address -in a quantifiable manner- the posted concern that the sources did not have a large audience.

The electronics publications cited (EETimes and EDN) cover many areas of electronics - mil-aero, automotive, embedded internet, medical, audio; electronic design automation software is only one area of coverage. So this actually exceeds the minimum criteria as IC Manage is being covered by a publication that extends beyond it's immediate field. Only a small fraction (i.e. the most noteworthy) of EDA software technology products are covered. They simply do not have the staff to cover 'run of the mill'.

The page meets this fundamental 'noteability' criteria. :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP

These electronics trade editors are specialists that to screen for noteworthy content in electronics, just as law reviews and medical journals screen for noteworthy content in their field to cover. None of the articles cited in the page are press release regurgitations. Two contain independent technology content independent of any announcement (to have NVidia to publically comment on a product is noteworthy in itself), and in the other two articles the editors thought the technology change was noteworthy enough to do a formal interview.

BTW, the term 'solutions' that I originally used which Steve said called attention to the piece is actually widely used in EDA to distinguish between point tool whose inputs/outputs are in industry standard formats, and products that have been integrated into the design flow via scripts and menu commands. I understand that from a Wikipedia perspective it sounded like 'marketing' so I deleted it. Beyond that my original page was factual.

Thanks,

Mukis (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam piece. Brief discussions in a few trade publications doesn't satisfy WP:ORG. I get no sense of notability from the article, only that it wants me to buy its products. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More Remedies made to the page. I have done more research and modified the page further to add additional commentary on noteworthiness of the technology to the electronics industry in the history section, including a 3 page EETimes research article to demonstrate a broader context of notability that wasn't on the original page. (please see the new items for 2009 and 2010). Additionally, I have deleted the entire features section, and shortened other sections to avoid any appearance of 'trying to sell product', which is not the intention.

I had intentionally limited the articles I cited to keep the content limited. If there is a guideline in Wikipedia that states a certain number of articles is required to show noteworthiness, then I will add more articles. The $5 billion Electronic Design Automation (chip design software) industry is vital to entire electronics industry and the internet. Yet it inherently it is ONLY covered in electronics trade journals, and they meet the criteria for independent sources. As I stated above, the 2 main publications I used cover a broad range of electronics topics, not just EDA, and have 240K to 500K visitors - views/month - these are legitimate publications.

I am trying to meet Wikipedia's objective criteria. Are only Wikipedia admins allowed a voice here, or can I ask others that are familiar with the EDA industry to comment?

Thanks,

Mukis (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the article, even with the improvements, comes perilously close to advertising, I am of the opinion that enough has been done to demonstrate notability. Deb (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on meeting Wikipedia criteria for citations for Notability based on being the subject of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. FYI I didn't create the original IC Manage page, but modified it to include only factual content with cited independent resources. Equivalent page is IBM ClearCase. Both tools are commonly used in Electronic Design Automation for design data management. The only references cited are with regard to Rational being acquired by IBM. The rest is either uncited, or reference's IBM's own information page, whereas IC Manage's page is limited to content from independent sources- additional technical content derived from IC Manage's site can be added if requested. Mukis (talk) 19:53, 16 August 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.