Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero wait state

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 redirect‎ to Wait state. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero wait state

[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)

WP:DICTDEF, with unclear notability, unreferenced since 2009. Can this be fixed, or redirected (probably to Wait state, which is a bit longer, but also very poorly referenced...)? My BEFORE did not show anything useful - the term is used, but I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV, or even a reliable definition. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be fixed, but I for one am too busy to. Steve Gibson wrote about this extensively over a period of at least 3 years from 1988 to 1991 in xyr Tech Talk column in Infoworld magazine. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, Redirect. Uncle G is right, it could be fixed, but the current article is of no use whatsoever, and since the article on Wait states already discusses wastefulness and the desire to eliminate wait-states, the important concept of zero-wait-state can well be discussed there. The current zero wait state article is fundamentally misleading; memory doesn't necessarily have a "frequency", and the value that we assign to the frequency of a processor (e.g. 1GHz or whatever) doesn't fully specify how fast it collects data from memory. But I've nothing against recreation if someone wants to do the job properly in the future. Elemimele (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to wait state. I'm also not finding good coverage, and even if it exists, it probably would be better to discuss in wait state. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:31, 8 February 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.