Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECB AT91


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 16:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

ECB AT91

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article's subject fails to meet WP:N. The article has three external links. The first link is to the subject's developer and therefore is a primary source, which cannot evidence notability. The second link is to a Linux Devices news article, which is an independent and reliable secondary source. The news article however does not go towards indicating notability because it is not significant coverage as it is only 457 words long. The article also mentions the subject's developers have published a paper about the subject. While the paper is a primary source, it could be argued that it could contribute towards notability if it was published in a prominent venue and received enough attention. This is not the case. The paper does not appear to have been published at a conference or journal judging from its appearance. The third link is also to Linux Devices article. Again this article does not go towards indicating notability because the coverage is brief. The article's subject is covered in the context of benchmarking different application binary interfaces. The article's subject just happened to be the hardware on which the benchmarking was performed. Searching for "ECB AT91" on Google Web returned 461 "unique" results, most of which are mirrors of the Wikipedia article; News, no results; Books, three books which are copies of Wikipedia; and Scholar, two papers, both with no citations, and one that is a self citation. Rilak (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Detete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Detete looks like an interesting graduate student project from five years ago. If it were used in notable application could have been notable, but did not seem to be. W Nowicki (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2011 (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.