Submission declined on 14 October 2025 by Cabrils (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Where to get help If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews. If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed. How to improve a draft Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia – a basic overview on how to edit Wikipedia. Help:Wikitext – how to use the markup Help:Referencing for beginners – how to include references Wikipedia:Article development – how to develop your article Wikipedia:Writing better articles – how to improve your article Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Add tags to your draft Editor resources Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs Declined by Cabrils 2 months ago. Last edited by Cabrils 49 days ago. Reviewer: Inform author. Resubmit Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again.

Submission declined on 7 August 2025 by HitroMilanese (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Declined by HitroMilanese 4 months ago.

• Comment: Reviewers please see discussion about notability and WP:THREE on talk page. Cabrils (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:NCORP) but presently it is not clear that it does.
  As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject.
  Please note that many of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, press releases, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc).
  Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like an advertorial, which Wikipedia is not (also see WP:PEACOCK).
  The draft does not appear to show that the subject has any notability beyond the average coverage in trade publications for similar corporations (see WP:ROTM).
  Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. Please note that if you have not already done so, you must also declare your COI on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Given the conflict, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of conflict of interest. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial, which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV).
  Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page.
  It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
  It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NCORP, because XXXXX").
  Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. Hitro talk 10:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, I disclose that I have been paid by my employer for my contributions to this article. Rishkum (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Siltech is a Dutch manufacturer of high-end audio cables, founded in 1983 and based in Elst, the Netherlands.^[1] The company designs and manufactures interconnects, loudspeaker cables, and power cables for domestic and professional audio. Publications have noted its focus on conductor metallurgy and low-distortion insulation systems.^[2]

Siltech was established in 1983 in Nijmegen by engineers Hans de Ligt and Michel de Goey.^[3] The brand gained early recognition in the European hi-fi market through its "G" series of silver-conductor cables. In 1992, electronics engineer Edwin van der Kley Rijnveld acquired the company, relocating operations to Elst and expanding in-house R&D.^[3] Independent coverage in the 2000s documented subsequent product generations and the company’s emphasis on materials science.^[4] By its 40th anniversary in 2023, Siltech was described as a long-standing specialist in European high-end audio with international distribution.^[3]

Reviewers frequently cite Siltech’s research into conductor alloys (including silver-gold and later monocrystal/“Infinite Crystal Silver” conductors) and multi-layer dielectrics such as Kapton, Teflon, and PEEK.^[5][6] Independent articles also note an emphasis on mechanical stability, long-term reliability, and low-noise terminations.^[7]

Siltech manufactures signal, speaker, and power cables across several families:

• Classic Legend – a mid-to-upper range line employing silver-gold conductors and multi-layer insulation.^[8]
• Royal Crown – derived from the Royal Signature series, reviewed for low noise and shielding efficiency.^[9]
• Master Crown – current flagship range; reviews highlight transparency and dynamic stability.^[10][11]

The company has also undertaken limited electronics projects, including the SAGA amplifier concept covered by Stereophile.^[12]

Siltech products have been reviewed by international publications including The Absolute Sound, SoundStage! Ultra, Hi-Fi+, HiFiStatement, StereoNET, LowBeats, and Audiotechnique. The Classic Legend 880 series received the 2023 Golden Ear Award from The Absolute Sound.^[13] LowBeats characterized the Classic Legend line as a reference-level cable system with strong dynamic performance,^[14] while StereoNET highlighted construction quality and tonal neutrality in its review of the 680/880i models.^[15] Publications in Asia, including Audiotechnique and Phileweb, have also reported on Siltech’s higher-end series and design approach.^[16][17]