Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coprocessor tuning


 * 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 Delte. Tiptoety talk 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Coprocessor tuning

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article appears to be a hoax. Google searching for "aix cotune", "2.6.27 kernel tuning", "rs/6000 tuning" and other related searches turn up nothing of relevance except this article. The image provided is ambiguous, and I do not believe it is an actual tuning knob (though I leave that decision up to an expert in this field). In short: Google (and a few other search engines) fail to turn up anything which might support this article, and no sources have been produced in support of it. nneonneo (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete No sources can be found whatsoever, which I find surprising for a scientific article. I feel this meets G3 ("obvious hoaxes and misinformation"), so I tagged it as such. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It definitely needs more sources. I talked to a few people in my University's computing group who indicated the knob (see the picture) is indeed used for coprocessor tuning. I don't have any system manuals so I can't verify the claim myself. I think it should be tagged with rather than deleted outright (at least for now). Andareed (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am sceptical: what could such a knob possibly do to "tune" the accuracy of a coprocessor? The only thing I can think of would be to allow the user to turn up the clock speed till it starts making errors, then turn it gently back again till it stops; but that would seem a dodgy way to operate. JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as almost certainly a hoax, but (as I hoped TenPoundHammer would have learnt from comments in his RFAs) there's no need to jump immediately for speedy deletion. This isn't a BLP case where letting it run for a few more days will harm anyone, and just possibly (although I consider it highly unlikely) someone will come up with a source. This isn't a news site where immediacy is important; it's a long-term project to build a collabarative encyclopedia by consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatant hoax. --Yamla (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - please note that WP:HOAX policy does allow articles about notable hoaxes, many of which are listed in the hoax article. This article should only be deleted if it is not "notable enough" to keep. (It looks like a hoax to me). --68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * a notable hoax would need to be one that fooled a lot of people or generated a lot of comment, like Ern Malley or the Sokal hoax. A hoax article submission to Wikipedia that is promptly detected isn't likely to qualify, unless it is extraordinarily witty or subtle. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2008 (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.