Talk:Processor book

Notability
Does this &ldquo;article&rdquo; need to exist? One author entered two lines of text, four years ago, as his only contribution to Wikipedia, and since then we've just tweaked the tags describing exactly how pointless this page is.

Is &ldquo;Processor book&rdquo; anything more than an IBM-centric alias for &ldquo;system board&rdquo;, as used in (e.g.) Sun4d multi-processor systems a dozen years earlier? This page mentions that &ldquo;A book contains processors, memory, and connection to the I/O cages&rdquo;, which is substantiated by IBM's z9 hardware processor mini-course; yet that reference also confirms the equvalence to &ldquo;system board&rdquo;. Perhaps this Processor book page should be deleted and replaced by a redirect to a System board page. Unfortunately, at the moment System board is a redirect to Motherboard, a sadly PC-centric page that would not be an appropriate final redirect from Processor book. So perhaps it's best to delete Processor book and explain the equivalence to &ldquo;System board&rdquo; within the text of the only other Wikipedia page which links here. Does that sound reasonable?

206.205.52.162 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no objection (or any other response) in almost three months, I suggest that this article be deleted because the subject is not noteworthy. The subject, &ldquo;processor book&rdquo;, isn't a company or the product of a company, or even a component of a product of a company &mdash; it's the manufacturer's private alias or nickname for a component of a product of a company. The component it refers to, a particular implementation of a multiprocessor system board, introduced no new technology, as other manufacturers had sold equivalent system boards years before. No company other than IBM uses this term; even IBM doesn't use this term in connection with other products it makes; and IBM hasn't always used this term even for its current purpose &mdash; in fact, in the almost-50-year history of the System/360 product line, this term is less than 10 years old. In short, this term seems to be an ephemeral minor marketing buzzword, which may not be sufficiently noteworthy to be a Wikipedia article.

There is no doubt that &ldquo;processor books&rdquo; exist, but that doesn't make them notable (WP:ENN, especially here). They are described in reliable published sources, but written by their manufacturer or affiliates, where objectivity is not assumed. This subject really does seem to be excessive trivia (WP:IINFO). Any objections to deletion?

76.100.23.153 (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

...Two years later, the single cite is now a broken link. While the technology might be quite novel and unique (I did follow a link here from another IBM mainframe page) this article is indeed completely devoid of actual information. Mattghali (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)