Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEC µPD7720


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

NEC µPD7720

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced since 2009. Article presents no evidence of notability. GBooks search gives 2 hits, bare passing mentions. — Keφr 09:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Smerus (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Children, this was one of the first DSPs on the market, and the article says as much. "The most popular first generation DSP chips, the NEC µPD7720 and Texas Instruments TMS32010 became commercially available in late 1982." 173.172.188.215 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;This processor is mentioned in every DSP textbook I've looked at, but finding references that were more than passing mentions was a little challenging. Here's what I've come up with:
 * I think that's sufficient to demonstrate notability. If anyone would like a look at the pdfs, let me know and I'll send you a copy.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a bunch of passing mentions on the article talk page. Might help a bit with the background.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Article now reorganized+rewritten to include 3 solid cites and 5 informative ones. It's needs work, but I think the current state is sufficient to survive AfD.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's sufficient to demonstrate notability. If anyone would like a look at the pdfs, let me know and I'll send you a copy.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a bunch of passing mentions on the article talk page. Might help a bit with the background.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Article now reorganized+rewritten to include 3 solid cites and 5 informative ones. It's needs work, but I think the current state is sufficient to survive AfD.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Inherently notable by reason of being "the most popular first generation DSP chips". James500 (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as inherent notability. Nontrivial coverage either exists or it does not. If it does, the topic is notable. If not, it is not. Simple. — Keφr 07:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I refer you to Don't cite WP42 at AfD. If you read N carefully, you will find that, contrary to the popular misconception, GNG doesn't work in reverse. James500 (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I refer you to Verifiability. If you read it carefully, you will find that contrary to a popular misconception, this is not a misconception at all. WP:V requires that information in articles be sourced using reliable references, and that information that fails to be so sourced is liable to be deleted. And no one will argue for keeping less than five sentences in an article, right? — Keφr 07:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:V has never required signficant coverage. James500 (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Inherent notability might be worth reviewing (both of you). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, but it is only an essay. James500 (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have looked at this more carefully, and I am of the view the book by Chance is enough to satisfy GNG. I can't read the other two because I don't have a subscription. James500 (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lesser Cartographies source finds, article cleanup, and further development. Nice work. --Mark viking (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2014 (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.