Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherence-free processor


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  01:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Coherence-free processor

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails general notability guideline. Can only find a single academic paper as a reference, and that appears to be written by the editor that created the page. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  22:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * A bot removed the link from cache coherence.
 * Since this is a coherence mechanism, can I place it there or under cache coherency protocols?
 * That eliminates the notability problem. The reason I created a new topic was because it is rather lengthy.
 * Thank you FrankYang43338 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest following the steps outlined here if there is conflict of interest, and requesting the edit on the talk page of one of those articles (see Simple conflict of interest edit request). Do let me know if I can provide further info, but afraid I'm probably not qualified to add content in this area myself with confidence. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep comment here from the article creator so I don't think Soft Deletion is appropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indeed this is an attempt to republish an academic paper as a Wikipedia article. Blatant violation of WP:NOT. Tercer (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.