Talk:D&MP Electronics

Conesting Deletion Request

I think this company entry is relevant, as it makes List_of_x86_manufacturers#x86-processors_for_embedded_designs_only more readable when keeping the CPU info out. I added the CPU info there, as I saw a Netbook sold with a strange x86 compatible CPU and Windows XP which was neither by Intel, AMD or VIA - I did some research as it was claimed it was XScale which is an ARM architecture. After finding the information I thought it was sensible to put them on wiki to avoid further confusion. So I did some additional research to get enough information to do some reasonable wiki article - at least I hoped so :-/ -- Mewtu (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How does this article pass the notability requirements listed here? --13² 19:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Vortex86 CPU is used in Embedded Devices (29,100 google hits for Vortex86) and Netbooks (it's however hard to find the PDX-600 when not knowing about it's relation with the Vortex86 - so most Netbook reviews with this one don't get the connection and refer to it as mysterious chip without noting the 486 architecture. They could at least check out wikipedia next time I thought ;-) As those netbooks are rebranded by a dozened of companies, it would get even more confusing. (but that's something to discuss in the three articles about the same hardware. I feared at least three additional ones would come when versions with the chip from this article hit the European/US market (saw them only on ebay so far) -- Mewtu (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Internet searches are not considered reliable sources. Further, you're bringing up notability based on the products they make, not the company itself. Why is the company notable and why does the company pass WP:ORG? --13² 19:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, true, I'd rather created an article about the Vortex86 CPU (I there was nothing on the SiS page either, in spite of it originally belonged to them.) But this would be even stubbier - this way it even includes information about their 386SX clone. I only did the Internet research to get the connection between the product and the CPU, I took the information about the chips from the data sheets provided by D&MP, so I'd consider this as a reliable source. There is a Press Release about the Vortex86SX, there is however not that much buzz about embedded devices. The netbook was first revealed at last CES and has been reviewed by engadget, since they have no clue, they simply talk about a 1GHz no-name processor - as I said there are plenty of retailers all branding those devices different, often dropping the CPU name somewhere - so those devices may be relevant (it's always the same in the end) but those CPUs don't come out of nowhere - and it's not like there were a lot x86 manufacturers out there. -- Mewtu (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is called synthesis because you're taking multiple sources and drawing conclusions from them. Also, you're using an awful lot of primary sources. When it comes to organizations, we need secondary sources. We need stuff like press releases, news coverage, magazine articles devoted to the company. The company, not the product. The product does not define notability for the company. You're still focusing on the product, but not the company. Please stop doing that. Thanks. --13² 20:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So would you agree to move this to Vortex86? There are plenty of primary and secondary sources about this product. -- Mewtu (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. I would strongly encourage you to be very careful about making sure that the information in that article is about the product and the product only, but not this or any other company. --13² 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's odd. How can you do an article about a product without mentioning the company that makes it? -- Mewtu (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning the company that makes it is different than talking about the company that makes it. A short blurb about the company is sufficient, but not a whole section. --13² 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

done -- Mewtu (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, bringing up other articles is generally an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. See the following link for why: click here. --13² 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Move / rename page

It's not D&MP but DM&P, source http://www.dmp.com.tw/tech/img/dmp.gif ;) --193.166.137.75 (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)