Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorola 68050 (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Motorola 68000 family. There is no consensus to delete this time around, however this article may be put up for deletion again if the merge is not completed soon (my guideline is usually one month) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Motorola 68050

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

Article about a chip which was never produced. The previous AfD nomination cited this and resulted in delete. Speedy G4 deletion of this recreated article was contested because it appears not to be word-for-word the same. However, the chip has still never been produced; it is still non-notable and the article makes no attempt to demonstrate otherwise. Ros0709 (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Motorola 68000 family. Rilak (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Non-production does not mean non-notable (e.g. Microsoft Bob which was also never released) which appears to be the entire criteria for deletion here. Wayne Hardman (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment But the Microsoft Bob article says with "released in March 1995"? Anyway, non-released isn't non-production. Even if a product isn't released, it might be notable still if it was produced and developed internally. But there's no evidence that this chip existed beyond being a hypothetical possibility. Should we have articles for Motorola 68080 or Motorola 12345? (I know we have a Motorola 68070, for some reason the admin redirected that despite no one in the earlier AfD suggesting that, I guess because he thought there might be confusion with the Philips 68070 which does exist.) Mdwh (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, not only was the 68050 never produced, it was, as the article states, cancelled early, there's no article to build on this. Motorola 68000 family already mentions it. Equendil Talk 14:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Motorola 68000 family. RockManQ (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge . I declined speedy because this was a much better article, explaining the importance more clearly. This chop was more than speculation--development on it was undertaken. The amount of material that should be available for even a cancelled major project like this should be substantial. But if not, then I suggested a merge. DGG (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)'
 * Merge and redirect. Not enough notability or references to keep individual but may be to family article.   Reywas92 Talk  20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Motorola 68000 family. This article is almost a stub, so merging is very practical. Also, there are no sources cited in this article, but presumably something can be found, and the criteria for notability is lower if this info were included in another article rather than stand-alone. VG &#x260E; 03:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete My concern is not notability, but the complete lack of any sources (the only source there was a circular reference that was sourced from Wikipedia, presumably the original version of the article). Note that judging by the text at and the comments at Articles for deletion/Imaginary Motorola CPUs, the original article was about a product that it admitted didn't exist, which is why lack of notability was relevant (articles about non-existent products usually aren't notable!) However, this article claims that such a chip did exist, at least in planning stages. If this was true, I think it could be notable, however it's not clear whether it is or not. If sources can be found, I will change my vote; and my vote should also not be taken as a delete if any future version of an article is created that does have reliable sources. But until then, we have no idea if this is true, or just made up. I'm not sure what good a redirect would be, if there turn out to be no sources for this - I fear we'll just end up with loads of non-existent chip names redirecting there. Mdwh (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Motorola 68000 family. Not an unreasonable search term, for people who may know about the '030, '040, and '060.  If there's anything salvageable, merge it. Neier (talk) 22:04, 22 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.