Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessolve

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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tessolve[edit]

No assertion of notability. May be notable however. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good no of Gnews hits (a majority are trivial mentions, but there are over 10 primary mentions that I counted). However, on reading the news articles, I'm a bit confused about the company, so the article clearly needs to be more than the one line it is right now and/or be broader in scope to include the US company.. It looks like it's been set up by an Indian in CA as a subsidiary of the Silicon Valley comapny. Some RS links showing notability: Business Standard, Hindu Business Line, Business Standard, Financial Express, Forbes-trivial mention. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something's wrong(apart from the bad lingo). This link[1] says that it is a US based company, not the first Indian company. I would have voted keep if this claim was true. --Deepak D'Souza 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response On reading through a variety of the news links I found this out: The US company is a holding company, the Indian one is funded in part by the US company and also a smattering of other sources including Qualcomm, Applied Material etc. This article is in serious need of help, but given that it's the first company to actually do genuine FAB work in India, I believe it's notable (of course, in addition to the coverage); I just hope someone can integrate the news refs into at least one paragraph for an article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that it is a fab unit,r ather that it is a testing unit. A fabrication unit is expensive and can only be afforded by a large company like TI, Intel, AMD or a consortium. Tessolve simply doesn't seem to be in the same league. Nonetheless, Ill vote keep for now and give the creator a month or two to improve the article and prove its notability. --Deepak D'Souza 10:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

I agree, the article is ultra weak on context or anything, and just reading through the sources I listed above, I seem to have got a different picture. While notability exists, I don't think the article is anywhere near showing that. This isn't an article I can improve, so I'm leaving it to the creator. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepNotability not absolute. Voting keep as per my comments above. Let the creator improve the article and prove notablity in a month or two or else it can be nominated again. --Deepak D'Souza 10:42, 20 June 2009 (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.