Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concurrent average memory access time


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Concurrent average memory access time

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON. The topic of this page was introduced in a 2014 research article in IEEE Computer, which so far has attracted, according to GScholar, 4 citations. Two of those are in the (non-peer reviewed) magazine HPC Today, and have been written by the author of the IEEE Computer article; they're the same article, but GScholar didn't get that. The third is a self-citation, leaving only one non-affiliated source. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The C-AMAT wiki page has been viewed over 400 times from web users within three months. I do not believe that the number of publication citations is an accurate metric to use for determining the relevance of a topic. In fact, publications are for a technical audience, while wikipedia provides an overview from a high-level about a topic. Because of this, I believe there are many people who want to know about the general concept of C-AMAT as can be seen from the figure on the right as well as the numerous media appearances of C-AMAT. The current page statistics for the C-AMAT page are incorrect, and thus I understand why you may have gotten the wrong impression about the popularity of C-AMAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahaider3 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * the graph doesn't prove anything. When I google for "concurrent memory" and a variety of similar queries, this page is the first hit. That doesn't mean readers were actually looking for C-AMAT, only that search engines like Wikipedia. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 20:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, except for a very short mention in the Average memory access time article for weight, as a non-notable concept. Esquivalience t 23:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * When I type "concurrent memory", I do not get the C-AMAT wiki page. In fact, the reason why I created a "C-AMAT" redirection page is because of the difficulty in finding the Concurrent Average Memory Access Time wiki page from a standard google search. I believe the amount of viewers does show the relevance and interest in the topic especially considering it was very hard to stumble upon the wiki page unless the entire title is spelled out in a google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.63.79 (talk • contribs)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (?): could be your search bubble. Try Yahoo or DuckDuckGo. Both put the C-AMAT page on top. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 08:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Comparing with DuckDuckGo and Yahoo, Google still has a much larger audience. And it’s not a search bubble --- if you Google "concurrent memory" within "incognito" browsing mode, this page didn't show up until you reach the third page of search results. Ahaider3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.63.79 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   07:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, unsourced and no assertion of notability. Daniel (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Can't find anything to rise to the level of WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:59, 24 August 2015 (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.