Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/68h (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Rename to Motorola 6800 family. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:20Z 

68h

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As I noted on the talk page:

The deletion debate seemed pretty bogus to me… there is no "68h" series except for in this article. The debate was carried out carelessly with most of the keep comments coming from folks who obviously didn't follow the links, or have no prior knowledge of these chips. ... Check these google results: 68h microprocessor 6800 6502 -wiki -wikipedia gives 79 hits but the first few obviously mirror us. 6800/6502 gives 342 and 6502/6800 gives 801 (which says something about the relative popularity of the original :vP ).

The term 68h is not used outside of Wikipedia. When people talk about the similarity between the chips they invariably use "6502/6800" or occasionally "6800/6502." The other Wikipedia page referenced in the debate used 68h to refer to the Motorola series only, not the 6502. Indeed the derivation would seem to be an adaptation of 68k; where k is the SI suffix for thousands, h is for hundreds. In this case this should be a redirect page to 6800.

There is almost no activity at this page. The most significant edit since the last AfD was a tag disputing factual accuracy.

Besides the list of processors, this article only asserts that the processors form a family. Although there is no article on microprocessor family, the term generally implies source code compatibility and not merely a shared design team. This article's assertion is analogous to saying the AMD K5 and successors are part of the AMD 29000 family.

My vote: Redirect to Motorola 6800. Potatoswatter 02:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This AfD was incorrectly made and orphaned, accounting for the date discrepancy. Potatoswatter has just added this to the listing. Abstain from me. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This was posted on the talk page: - I agree. This is not an article... delete it. Matan 03:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Potatoswatter 05:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the editors in the prior AFD discussion wanted the article renamed to Motorola 6800 family, and the 65xx content cut out and pasted into MOS Technology 65xx. Rather than simply doing that, which requires no more than the ordinary editing tools that ordinary editors have, and that entirely addresses the above argument that the two familes should not be intermixed, you have brought the article back to AFD for a second time.  Fixing the article in a way that addresses your concerns is entirely within your reach using the editing tools that you yourselves already have.  It does not require AFD.  It does not require administrator intervention.  Speedy close. Uncle G 10:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Was that the consensus but nobody took up the task? = grubber 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Two separate editors, out of the four that expressed opinions that it should be kept, suggested it, and nobody took up the task. Uncle G 02:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The result of the debate was "keep". That was one suggestion by user:AJR which did not spur particular discussion. In any case, there is already a category for the Motorola 6800 processors and this article doesn't contain significant content to start something better. Potatoswatter 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It contains an introduction and several annotations against the individual processors. Picking up AJR's idea and running with it was something that you could have done yourself.  It's actually taken you more edits to write on the talk page and then start and continue this AFD discussion, than it would have for you to have hit the rename button to rename the article to the suggested name and then hit the edit button twice to cut the 65xx content out of this article and paste it into MOS Technology 65xx. Uncle G 02:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for one articles take me longer than conversation. And for two, I'm not personally in favor of doing that. I think 6800 does a fine job of introducing the family and removing the page is better than trying to hack it. When someone wants to write a 6800 family page, it will be easier to do from scratch. Potatoswatter 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The irony is, I'd prolly have just been WP:BOLD if there weren't an authoritative vote resulting in "KEEP." Potatoswatter 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, yeah, I didn't realize it was a pain for any administrators when I did that. I just thought I'd get the attention of anyone caring about/watching this article so as not to step on toes. Given the effort everyone's put into this here discussion, I guess I owe it to go over to 6800, copy a few paragraphs into a new 6800 family article, maybe expand a little, and redirect 68h there. Thus freeing 6800 to grow to describe more about that chip (dates, sales, engineers) and improving organization. Potatoswatter 03:29, 16 February 2007 (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.