Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manycore processing unit


 * 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 keep. John254 00:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Manycore processing unit

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original work, I have been in the computer industry for 20 years and have NEVER heard this term used Dyl 04:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So whether or not you personally know something is the arbiter of whether it's real or notable? Morgan Wick 16:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note. The term seems to pass the Google test. However, I have OR and V concerns about the article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. OR or verifiability concerns should be addressed by removing content in the article that cannot be verified.  Several reliable sources for this concept were easily found in less than a minute using google:       JulesH 12:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article certainly needs a cleanup, and some more reliable sources. I find the nominator's argument for deletion unconvincing. Recurring dreams 12:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Exactly how is this original work? The article appears to be okay to me, and just because one has never heard about something, doesn't mean it's not notable. And if it is, I'll be the first one to nominate...*clicks Random article* Magog River for AfD since I never heard of it either. -WarthogDemon 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My "concerns" were just that the article could be improved-- I don't see enough problems for it to be deleted, as the term is clearly used whether or not the nom has heard of it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I was actually just referring directly to the nom. I don't disagree with your comment, given that I don't have extensive knowledge about this subject . . . just enough to know that the article itself appears to be fine or could easily be made fine. -WarthogDemon 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, perhaps snowball keep. Article needs cleanup and sources, not deletion -- obviously a notable term. Nominator's rationale of "I've never heard of it" is not valid at all. I'd fix it myself, if this weren't outside my area of expertise. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Google check shows Intel has been using the term, and even though I have 35 years in the computer business and have never heard of the term (and I find the dichotomy of "multicore" vs. "manycore" to be irksome), it appears to be valid and appropriate. But the article does need some clean-up and good references (hey, can i vote on this thing too? :o) - 69.235.255.45 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per several of the above. I haven't heard of this term before reading this article but after a little searching around, it appears I just missed the reference. Turlo Lomon 13:06, 23 July 2007 (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.