Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megahertz myth


 * 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   That it's snowing, no need to keep it up for 5 more days (non-admin closure). The Man in the Rock (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Megahertz myth

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

This article is lengthy, but has major problems. First it is a technical topic without any references (there is one for a sentence that is off topic), and there are "examples" throughout that seem to be more of the authors experience then reliable provable tests. Secondly, the article is laced with POV (often combined with OR) such as "The power-hungry hot-running Pentium 4 was unsuitable for laptops". It would be better just to start from scratch on this article. -Royalguard11 (T) 23:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure start from scratch is the correct approach, but heavy application of a filleting knife wouldn't go amiss. Only the first two paragraphs are at all encyclopedic. Nonetheless, it does seem to be a term that's thrown around a fair bit, and as far as I can tell it's not any single company's marketing slogan or anything (that first Apple link had me woried on that score, though). Keep but gut is my vote. MadScot (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, with severe cleanup as it is right now, not an article that should be in an Encyclopedia. However, it's fixable and sources do seem to exist if a search is done. The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep with cleanup. There is information here that could remain if properly sourced, but which would be overkill for that subsection of clock rate. TheMolecularMan (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This proposal to delete an article because it is not up to standards at the moment is ridiculous. To quote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Sources? A quick search on Google reveals:  . Rilak (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – the article was put together using the references shown in the external links, I've used a couple of them to provide another two inline references, further clean up is needed but the article's notability is properly established. . . dave souza, talk 09:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article is a good starting point for a discussion of a real, and real-life, computer characteristic. I do agree with the above wikinuts, that some editing would be useful on the page. Raymondwinn (talk) 09:24, 18 September 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.