Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4i2i Communications

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. Nomination withdrawn, no delete vote Pea ceNT 02:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4i2i Communications

Delete Wikipedia is not geocities. Article fails to establish notability Speedy Keep, contributors have made a sufficient claim of notability and found a reputable source Tomstdenis 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4i2i Communications - this article should not be deleted, as it links to various academic resources describing the creation of hardware video codecs. In my opinion this is an invaluable addition (there are not other articles in Wikipedia that I have found thoroughly dealing with the topic) and as such should stay.

It's a commercial article that links to other wiki pages. Still doesn't answer the challenge of notability. The subject (4i2i) itself must be notable to be included. They're hardly the only video codec vendor or designer in the world (also, don't edit other peoples comments). Tomstdenis 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also what links are you talking about? They link to H.264 and HDTV. That's hardly an authorative list of video codec resources. Also, please sign your posts. I noticed that you're posting from BT (British Telecom). You wouldn't happen to be affliated with 4i2i would you? Tomstdenis 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The company is notable as a provider of H.264 hardware codecs of which there are few in the world. I agree that there are many video codec vendors, but the total number of H.264 Hardware video_codec providers worldwide that ship FPGA compatible implementations is about two. I was referring to links to Xilinx specific academic papers in the 4i2i Communications article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.190.248 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

How is that notable? H.264 is a new standard which is why there are few implementations of it. I seriously doubt that they're alone in that respect though. There are many companies which offer unique products, that doesn't make them notable. If you want to argue for notability, start by finding third party unaffliated references that talk about 4i2i's technology or place in society. Just listing products does not notability make. Tomstdenis 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should add [1] to the discussion. There are MANY H.264 providers it seems. That 4i2i is at the top does not make them notable (for instance, nobody links to their H.264 page). Tomstdenis 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Aberdeen and Economy_of_Scotland show the company's place in society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.190.248 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That only proves that 4i2i is a company in Scotland. That doesn't prove notability. Anyone with enough money for a business license can form a company. I should add that the linked articles only mention 4i2i, they don't discuss it (e.g. why is it notable?). Tomstdenis 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though there are many SOFTWARE and ASIC implementations of H.264 there are few (only one?) FPGA implementations.

So what? Why is that notable? We often test our hardware in FPGAs as well. We don't consider that a wikipedia worthy notable event. Tomstdenis 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being ignorant - but can I ask Tomstdenis who he is referring to as 'we'? dfmcp 18:06, 2 February 2007 (GMT)

The company develops notable, cutting edge technology (that from my research no other company seems to be providing). We do consider that a wikipedia worthy event. And the article is valuable providing the correct grounding for FPGA Video_Codec related information (and technical research papers). Definitely Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.190.248 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reflow... The 4i2i website provides no links [I can find] to papers or open documentation about the FPGA design. It's a commercial website that sells IP. The article itself provides no information about the FPGA design other than it exists. The article either needs an incredible re-write, or it needs to be deleted. Actually look at the damn article, what information can you see from it other than it's a company in Scotland that sells video codec IP. Big deal. Not notable. Tomstdenis 15:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the references section of the article. Research paper links are there. Also try this google fpga h.264 search for the notability of an H.264 implementation [2]

Let's see, a couple press releases and links to OTHER companies who also have H.264 hardware. Big deal. Google for "LibTomCrypt" Not only does it get more hits (about twice as many) but it's equally non-notable. Provide URLs to non-affiliated writeups (beyond a token summarization) and then maybe you'll make your point. At anyrate, you've made your case (thusfar) and I've made mine. Please don't reply until you have actual proof of notability. Tomstdenis 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just my 2cents worth... The article describes part of an important new economic driver in Scotland. I note the user Tomstdenis has posted a google.ca link, so is likely a North American user - where there are a good number of semiconductor companies. In Scotland cutting edge companies like 4i2i Communications are fewer on the ground, and make a notable difference to the economy here. Especially so in Aberdeen where the Oil industry is the dominant provider of employment - so to disagree with the words of Tomstdenis 4i2i is a big deal . I'm slightly biased as I did contribute to the 4i2i Communications article, but for the reasons listed above, and in this paragraph would definately Keep the 4i2i article. dfmcp 17:49, 2 February 2007 (GMT)

Certainly adding some of the above to expand the 4i2i Communications article makes sense. dfmcp 17:49, 2 February 2007 (GMT)

Arrg don't move AfD pages. This just doubles the discussion. As to your point, if you think you can add notable content to the page I'll change my vote to keep. As the article stands now it's non-notable and an abuse of Wikipedia. Tomstdenis 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom - after a small amount of research I've added to the 4i2i article reference to the company supplying IP Cores to NASA for spaceflight. I hope this helps add some more of the notability you are looking for. dfmcp 19:12, 2 February 2007 (GMT)

It's a start. Needs better citations though. Some ad-ridden press release isn't quite up to par. But it is in the right direction. I'd definitely vote to delay declaring a concensus (one way or the other). Please find some more references and we're set. Tomstdenis 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, I've put in a second NASA reference - non ad-ridden this time (from the Scottish Enterprise website - a UK government organization). That said, the original reference was to The Scotsman Newspaper Online, which is reputed to be a quality publication.

Also as the article is less than seven days old, it would be unreasonable to delete it without first having given it time to expand. There is much public domain information about 4i2i codec products which I believe are widely used in various consumer electronic items. Similar more mature wikipedia articles from other UK technology companies include ARC International and ARM Holdings. dfmcp 17:56, 2 February 2007 (GMT)

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.