This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Widefox(talk | contribs) at 20:30, 3 May 2021(Assessment (Stub/Low): Computer science, +Computing (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 20:30, 3 May 2021 by Widefox(talk | contribs)(Assessment (Stub/Low): Computer science, +Computing (Rater))
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
C-AMAT has been very recently proposed and seems not to have gained much traction yet; the sources for this article have attracted less than a handful of citations each. I suggest we relegate C-AMAT to a section of the article on AMAT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qwertyus, we believe C-AMAT has received significant attention as a memory metric and thus deserves its own wiki page. In fact, here are a few a links to its appearance on the news: hpctoday and ccf. Although recent, the C-AMAT wiki page has also been viewed over 700 times. However, the current statistics shown for the C-AMAT wiki are not correct. We believe this may have been caused by redirecting C-AMAT to this wiki page. Please let us know if you want any further information or any other questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahaider3 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the citing references and I changed my mind regarding the merge. I'm going to put the page up for deletion instead. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]