Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APIC

Not encyclopedic in its current form. - snoyes 07:50, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yoda writes for Wikipedia now? It badly represents whatever it is trying to represent. The title itself is spelled differently in the article and I am unable to understand it enough to save it. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 15:10, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yoda? Reads more like JeffK to me. Except with "thou"s. -- Cyrius|&#9998 16:58, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Perhaps an unintelligible tech tip on an obscure AT bus configuration fix, by an anon non-English speaker. The only other edit from this IP, just a few weeks ago, was reverted as vandalism. That earlier incident looked like a joke from a Dutch speaker, so this may be a joke too, or just a newbie. Andrewa 17:40, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Thou mayst delete this posthaste. Smerdis of Tlön 00:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * O Death, where is thy sting? Deleteth with extreme prejudice.  Lucky 6.9 03:42, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like a Babblefish translation JRR Trollkien 22:25, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I have tried to fix some of the wording and add an intelligible explanation. However this is a very dangerous game as I have no direct personal knowledge of this chip or when and how to disable it. Dpbsmith 02:16, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) P. S. I also moved it to IO-APIC, because that seems to be the way Intel and others refer to it.
 * P.S. Can anyone tell whether this is a current issue? From the fact that Microsoft's note about it is dated 2001 I take it this is a feature of current SMP boards and not just limited to antique ISA-BUS systems, right? Dpbsmith 12:30, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Kill it if nobody is able to write something informative. That is, right now kill it. (No offence intended to Dpbsmith, though). Pfortuny 09:37, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. All deletevoters should take another look at the article (and read it). BL 07:48, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, now! An entirely new article on an entirely different subject!  I vote to keep unless the information is out of date.  I'm unfamiliar with the subject. - Lucky 6.9 18:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The gibberish reason for deletion is now gone. Unless somebody can tell me another reason, I'm voting keep. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:55, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is now a redirect page. Jsmethers 05:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)