Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESi-RISC


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus after two weeks of discussion JForget  18:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ESi-RISC

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

No evidence of notability under WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge If some indication of notability not produced by the processor's maker is discovered then merge else delete. Although not exhaustive, my search yielded only the maker's PR. Dethlock99 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think merging with the company's article would best serve wikipedia. Dethlock99 (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Did either of you even do a search? I did a google search on "eSi-RISC", and found the following articles in the first 10 results:      .  On brief inspection, most of these appear on the surface to be independent, reliable sources.  While the article needs a massive cleanup, the subject looks notable to me.    talk 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those mostly look like recycled press releases to me. Polarpanda (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Recycled press releases generally have similar or exact wording. All of these articles appear to have been independently written.    talk 16:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your examples include blogs and product announcement pages from specialized sources within a field. In your first example, most of the article is a quote from the manufacturer.  The author, quite properly, quoted what the manufacturer told him.  It doesn't appear that any of the reviewers have tested the product and are just parroting back what the manufacturer has told them.  I think wikipedia would be better with a paragraph under the company and a redirect rather than a separate article.  Are you or do you know an expert in this field?  Dethlock99 (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the article on the company. That article already has a section on these processors and any omissions can be easily fixed by adding facts from this article. My rationale for redirecting is that while there is coverage in reliable news articles, such as the Electronics Weekly example, there are no in-depth articles with detailed descriptions or analysis. This may be because these processors have only been recently announced, in November 2009, if I am not mistaken. Publications that are more detailed than just news, such as Microprocessor Report, can take a month or two after the product announcement before they have an article about it. That said, I don't think that these processors will be notable any time soon, if ever. Embedded microprocessors are numerous, both in terms of architectures and implementations, but only a small number of them are notable. The notability of these processors should be judged by the depth of coverage, those implementing the ARM or MIPS ISAs have have four- to eight-page articles in the Microprocessor Report, these do not at this time. Finally, having read the above comments, I think it is important that it is understood that these processors are not consumer products. There are no reviews (of the "popular tech" type) for this kind of processor; the closest thing to a review would be a Microprocessor Report article with an analyst's opinion. Rilak (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2009 (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.