Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/256-bit


 * 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 Delete. Avi 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

256-bit
The article says that such processors do exist, and discusses in detail how you'd need a computer the size of the universe for such an architecture to be necessary. Thus I think the subject is a little bit premature, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. An anon removed the prod tag, claiming there are 256-bit devices (despite the text of the article), so if somebody provides a source to correct me on this point obviouslly I'll withdraw the nomination. For now, delete. -- SCZenz 06:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There may not be 256-bit processors, but there are certainly 256-bit busses on high-end video cards (see for example ). I don't know that we need a separate article at this time just for them, though. &mdash;Lamentation ( 07:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; violates WP:NOT and probably WP:NOR and WP:V as well. It's an article about practically nothing; 256-bit is theoretically possible (gosh, really?), 64-bit handles everything we need right now, and that's about all it says.  Ravenswing 08:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and WP:V. --Coredesat talk 08:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and it messes up the N-Bit template too. --DaveG12345 09:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, although allow re-creation at a future date if the content is different than present, and 256-bit processors or a system using 256-bit archetechture - or a games console - are created (although this seems unlikely for the forseeable future in computing terms, i.e. 5+ years) TheJC TalkContributions 17:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete, its creator should read NOT. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.