Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intel processor confusion (second nom)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Ternera (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 23 January 2025 ((GR) File:Confused-tpvgames.gif → File:Confused-tpvgames.svg png --> svg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 of the debate was merge then delete. See also talk:Intel processor confusion

Intel processor confusion

[edit]

There are multiple reasons this page should be deleted. For one, the title is horribly, horribly POV. For another, this information is redundant; it's all present in a variety of other articles (List of Intel microprocessors, List of Intel Pentium 4 microprocessors, List of Intel Pentium D microprocessors, and List of Intel Core microprocessors, as well as the individual processor pages come to mind). It also violates WP:NOT, as this is a classic example of "an indiscriminate collection of information". Processors are added for the sole reason that the article's original creator finds them "confusing". Entire product lines are skipped solely because of an author's POV. Jgp 01:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Superman-strong Keep, since no response to the above question, regardless of article content. It borders on bad-faith to renominate an article so quickly, simply to try and reverse an unwanted result. Deleting an article under these circumstances sets a bad precedent- should not be renominated unless there have been significant deleterious changes to the content or context in the interim since the last save. In this case, there have been none at all. Badgerpatrol 12:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First of all, newer pages have been created. They have been linked in the nomination. These newer pages are not POV and actually have a focus, unlike Intel processor confusion. Second, you should vote based on Wikipedia policy and not based on politics. Jgp 23:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. You do not specify in your nomination that these pages are newer, or that the information has been recently merged into those pages, as per the consensus of the previous AfD. If that is the case, then why is the article listed here again? After the merge, it is now a candidate for Speedy D, surely (after a brief opportunity for discussion on the article's talk page)? Secondly, you incorrectly opened this discussion on the previous archived AfD without specifying that this was a re-nom. Thirdly, from WP:DEL: "There is no policy or consensus for a hard time limit before an article can be renominated, but some people are likely to state 'keep' for the reason that it was already discussed last week." Please point out the passage where the deletion policy instructs us that we may not vote 'Keep' for a quick re-nom. Not unexpectedly, this AfD debate is turning into a carbon-copy of the first- all a bit of a waste of time really. Badgerpatrol 00:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename "confusion" to 'statistics', it may be useful to see the data in a table like this rather than how its set out like a list at the other articles. The missing product lines should be added -- Astrokey44|talk 05:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least one reason for re-proposing this is that User:Jgp has created pages for lists of particular families of x86 microprocessors, so merging into those pages is a new option - and, I suspect, what Jgp has in mind. Guy Harris 07:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think he's now finished merging all the stuff from this page into those lists, so the Merge part is already done, and this page is redundant. Guy Harris 23:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think anything that might have been present in Intel processor confusion that wasn't present in the lists is now in the lists. Now, there's even less of a reason to keep this page around. Jgp 23:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have deleted the extraneous information that I don't think anyone wants. (If you think this was presumptuous of me, please feel free to revert the change.) The article would still have to be moved/renamed and the missing processor lines added, but what do you think now? Armedblowfish 03:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It beats the heck out of what was there before, and I think it was entirely correct to blow that stuff away, as it's all in the new processor list pages. Of course, once the page is renamed, one could argue that the old "Intel processor confusion" page has, in effect, been deleted (its content was moved elsewhere, and no page has that name any more), and a new page, giving a summary of the family "brand names" Intel's using for various x86 processor lines, was created ab initio. Guy Harris 03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. :) Of course, "Intel processor confusion" should redirect to the new page. What about the new name? How about "Comparison of Intel processors" or "Comparison of Intel processor lines"? Armedblowfish 14:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Intel_processor_confusion_(second_nom)&oldid=1271339546"