This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience Organizations This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization

Regarding WP:GNG and WP:NCORP I have referenced several different, independent sources. These references cover various conferences supported by the organization. Many items were covered by EE Times, referred to here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custom Integrated Circuit Conference. I do not believe that Draft:BACUS is WP:ROTM, there aren't many organizations like it and definitely none that have been around as long covering the history and growth of chrome masks in the semiconductor industry. Josbens (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Josbens,

Thanks for this.

Re WP:GNG and WP:NCORP: you have said that you have provided reliable sources, but that does not address the specific criteria defined in those policies that you assert the draft meets.

As requested, could you please address whether you have a conflict of interest?

And as requested, could you please provide WP:THREE? It will help speed up the assessment process.

Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

The following sources are provided to establish notability using WP:GNG guidelines:

• reliable; and
• independent; and
• secondary; and
• published; and
• provide significant coverage.

The following references show significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, which are independent of BACUS, and should suffice for WP:NCORP requirements.

Each article referenced covers a BACUS conference in its entirety where the subject of the article concerns the conference for that year.

The publications EETimes and EDN are independent of BACUS as are the writers qualifying as secondary sources.

As to the reliability of the publications and writers themselves, the publications are industry trade magazines to which each writer contributed numerous articles on various industry topics.

Specifically:

Reference [5] & [6], an article covering the 25^th Annual BACUS conference held in October 2005, published simultaneously in EETimes and EDN, industry trade magazines independent of BACUS, by Dylan McGrath, an independent writer who contributed numerous articles on the semiconductor industry from 2005-2016 for EETimes. He covered another [13] BACUS conference in September 2010 published in EETimes.

Reference [10] & [11], an article covering the Bacus Symposium held in September 2003, simultaneously published in EETimes and EDN by Mark LaPedus, an independent writer who contributed numerous articles on the semiconductor industry from 2000-2011 for EETimes. He also covered the [9] BACUS conference in October 2002 published in EETimes.

Reference [12], an article covering the BACUS conference in September 2004, published in EETimes by Ron Wilson an editor for EETimes from 1991 to 2006, is also independent of BACUS.

References [4], [14] written by Harry Levinson a frequent attendee of the BACUS conferences, reported on more recent conferences in 2023 and 2024 as a Subject Matter Expert, and published these articles in JM3, a peer reviewed trade journal and Semiconductor Engineering an industry trade magazine, both publications being independent of BACUS.

I believe the above references cover WP:THREE (3 independent sources).

Regarding my own WP:COI, (conflict of interest).  I am neither employed by nor received payment from BACUS to contribute to this article.

Josbens (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Cabrils,

Just checking if you've had a chance to read my response addressing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP sources.

Thanks,

Josbens (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Josbens,

Firstly, my apologies for this belated reply.

Secondly, thank you for your helpful and fulsome response.

I will start by noting that three other page reviewers, in addition to me, have declined the draft. Since I declined the draft, no substantive changes have been made to it (see the diff here).

I note the draft still includes a reference to an article on Medium, which is expressly not considered to be a reliable source (as defined)--that reference is only evidence that Jim Wiley published that article, and per the guidelines cannot be relied upon for the facts stated therein. It, and material based on it, really should be removed.

In relation to WP:THREE:

The articles you cite by Dylan McGrath, Mark LaPedus and Ron Wilson are all published in the one publication, EETimes, and so cannot be considered "multiple sources" per WP:ORGCRIT.

This will be disappointing news I know, however I still am not seeing the draft meet the relevant requirements of WP:CORP. There is no doubt that BACUS is a respected, serious organisation, and has weight in the world of photomasks, but I'm not yet seeing it as being "notable", as defined. The cited [SPIE article by Harry Levinson] supports this where it states (with my emphasis added):

For many years, printed volumes of proceedings from early BACUS symposia could be found only on the shelves in home offices of attendees of those early meetings, and they were generally not available to most people. ...these early proceedings are now available for everyone who has access to the SPIE Digital Library...

It's a very niche industry.

Such coverage in trade journals appears to me to be WP:ROTM.

For these reasons, I am not comfortable accepting the draft in its current form into main space.

However, it may be that other reliable sources exist so I would encourage you to continue looking. Cabrils (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Cabrils,

Thank you for taking the time to review my response. Regarding the sources that I highlighted therein, at least 2 of which were simultaneously published in 2 separate trade publications albeit both owned by AspenCore Media. However, I also included 2 other sources from JM3 and Semiconductor Engineering, that should suffice for WP:THREE

I did not include Jim Wiley's article in Medium as evidence of notability because it is a primary source as noted in the article being reprinted from a BACUS newsletter (October 2018). I added this as a reference alongside the Medium reference. I updated the article to state that Jim Wiley is a founding member of BACUS. The information in the article documents the core reason for the organization's establishment.

As for WP:ROTM, there is nothing on that page that indicates BACUS as strictly run-of-the-mill. It may have started as a local Bay Area group of companies but has grown to include international participation as evident in the edits I provided from the same sources. Its reach beyond the Bay Area is also inherent in the awards recognizing individuals from companies all over the world.

Finally, of the three other reviewers, one of them has since been banned from Wikipedia, so with all due respect, that review should be removed.

Josbens (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Josbens,

Thank you for your thoughts, however I maintain my view that for the reasons explained I am not comfortable accepting the draft into main space.

As I noted in my comment on the draft: "if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link)." Could you please clarify if you have a COI?

Regarding WP:THREE: I don't agree that the those sources suffice for WP:THREE, as explained.

Regarding Medium: The assertion that "The information in the article documents the core reason for the organization's establishment" does not make the source reliable. I did not say that it was being used to establish notability, rather, that it is unreliable. Per WP:MEDIUM:

"Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used for third-party claims about living persons."

However, on further reading of the above, I now accept that Wiley should be considered, relevantly, "a subject-matter expert", and that "the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions", so I take back what I said previously about removing the Medium reference-- I agree it may (properly) stay, and is a helpful contribution to the draft.

Regarding WP:ROTM: I maintain my view.

Regarding reviewers: Because a reviewer has been banned does not mean that their position on every edit they made is unreliable. Edits are assessed on their own merits. In any event, at least two other editors and I are in accord. Cabrils (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Cabrils,

Thank you for accepting the Jim Wiley reference -- I'm pleased you agree that it may properly stay. I am, however, disappointed that the secondary sources from SME Harry Levinson don't count.

As for my WP:COI, I repeat what I stated in my previous response:

"Regarding my own WP:COI, (conflict of interest).  I am neither employed by nor received payment from BACUS to contribute to this article."

Josbens (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Josbens,

Yeah I'm sorry about that disappointing news, but I do want to encourage you to persevere, there well may be other sources out there that improve the notability. And the draft remains in the list of drafts for other reviewers to assess, and they may feel the draft meets the relevant requirements.

Apologies re COI- I missed that you had already clarified that you don't have a COI, thank you.

All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

This draft asserts notability under the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) based on multiple *independent*, *secondary* sources that provide significant coverage of BACUS and its flagship conference, now known as SPIE Photomask Technology.

Strong independent sources include:

• EE Times (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005) — multiple feature-length articles use the BACUS symposium as the central venue for industry analysis on reticle sizes, yield crises, and DFM debates.

• Semiconductor Engineering (2024, 2025) — describes the Photomask Technology + EUV Symposium (successor to BACUS) as a “key annual event” for global photomask research and reports extensively on technical content presented there.

These sources satisfy:

• **Independence** — None are published by BACUS or SPIE.

• **Depth** — They contain multiple paragraphs focusing on BACUS as an institution or its conference.

• **Reliability** — EE Times, EDN, and Semiconductor Engineering are established, editorially controlled trade publications.

The draft avoids promotional tone, uses neutral language, and relies on independent sources for notability claims. Josbens (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply