Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gate count

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 was Merge‎. A discussion on which target is best can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 03:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gate count

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded with the rationale: "WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH of unrelated topics." Deprodded with the edit summary "Tech Term Used". — Anonymous 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. — Anonymous 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the current state of the article is pretty bad but I think we can make an article about this term. This paper from NIST discusses the effects of minimizing gate count on hardware efficiency; it appears to be used in quite a bit of quantum computing literature (see here); and this book has a couple sentences about how minimizing gate count "gives a simple estimate of the implementation cost of a reversible circuit" and minimizes "area and power consumption". I don't think this is the most notable topic in the world, but sufficient sourcing does exist. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the WP: SYNTH. That doesn't require a deletion discussion to go forward with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, perhaps I'll withdraw in that case. My searching was not exhaustive, so I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that this was simply a generic technical term, which isn't something inherently notable. If it's something important and notable within computing (not exactly my area of expertise), then it should indeed be kept. — Anonymous 19:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep provided the named sources are added. I agree that this looks like it should squeak by the notability threshold given this material, and it looks possible that more sources may be found later. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the subject should be merged into Digital electronics#Design_issues_in_digital_circuits, which is mostly junk right now but which really does need to address this. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Transistor count: where it will fit in naturally as a section. I believe this is a better target than Digital electronics#Design_issues_in_digital_circuits. Owen× ☎ 22:53, 5 March 2025 (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.