Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryzen


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)  Promethean  (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ryzen

 * – ( View AfD Stats )

'''The Ryzen Wikipedia article is simply too messy to even manage. '''
 * Fails to create a merge request properly.
 * Inability to improve article - Users who monitors seem to got lost on how to monitor this page.
 * Contain too much over hyped AMD fans comments opinions mixed with article information from sources. These information almost like saying AMD is better than Intel. The Ryzen page fails WP:POV severely.
 * The page not needed to be created anyways as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Ryzen_microprocessors exists.Regice2020 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Note : The deletion discussion contain AMD fans violating Stealth canvassing rule. Source 1Source 2
 * Note : The sources provided contain no evidence of the claimed stealth canvassing. This kind of acusation is inconsistent with WP:AGF.


 * Keep It's a notable subject and the fact that it is in need of improvement does not imply that it should be deleted. The List of AMD Ryzen microprocessors article, of which this is alleged to be a duplicate, is simply a collection of the various tables already in use in this article, but without the prose. Of the two, that is the article that should be considered for deletion. The proposed deletion appears to be motivated by a personal agenda - possibly from a vexed Intel fanboy, or even a troll, given the contentious wording and poor grammar. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello 87.75.117.183 what is your relations with the AMD Company? per WP:COI.Regice2020 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Regice2020. What is your relationship with User:TechmanACE? Per WP:SOCK 87.75.117.183 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not AMD Ryzen Fan Hub and better to have the page deleted. Wikipedia is a the encyclopedia. I mean you obviously said exact same thing that AMD fans would said on Intel or AMD related news articles comments and forum posts. Example would be - Talk about how the comments was posted .Saying this person is Intel Fanboy despite not knowing the users has a AMD Computer and calls them a troll!? out of no where.This Ryzen page has much more AMD fans opinions mixed into information and the List of AMD Ryzen microprocessors has much more limited info there and organized more.  https://wccftech.com/retailer-leaks-prices-of-amd-ryzen-3000-cpus-x570-motherboards/ https://wccftech.com/exclusive-amd-is-working-on-a-monster-64-core-threadripper-landing-as-early-as-q4-2019/ https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/single-core-performance-of-intels-sunny-cove-chips-surface-shows-big-ipc-increase.html  https://wccftech.com/intel-xeon-w-cascade-lake-cpu-28-core-56-thread-64-pcie-lanes/Regice2020 (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nonsense/trollish DR. Should we also delete Intel Core if you don't like its content? --Denniss (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Looking at the nominators contribs he did not even try to edit the article nor taking it to the talk page. This action actually borders vandalism and should result in a block. --Denniss (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea AMD fans editing non sense into Ryzen Wikipedia Article and try to make the info look it was from the source. You kidding me? Its all over the place. I do not see the point improving considering how much AMD fan opinions spread out the main article. Impossible to improve. Numbers of changes to the RYZEN main page were only made after something big is happening to this page. After afd was made for this page. Regice2020 (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't block people for making a mistake, as this deletion nomination was. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello I am here to lookup something for AMD and I saw this page being deleted. All I see in this Ryzen page is people trying shut other people up like on news sources personal comment sector. It almost like a big group AMD users trying prevent the change from happening. I call for independent Wikipedia editor experts for content removal and removing personal comments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechmanACE (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I spent a few hours copyediting the article today and if you have the time I would be grateful if you would leave a comment on the article's talk page to indicate how you feel it could be further improved. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep – but I do agree that a bunch of imbeciles keep messing up articles on AMD products… compare with articles on Intel products, these are usually informative. User:ScotXW t@lk 09:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, the subject is notable and there's no reason whatsoever for the article to be deleted. Note that the DR starter previously marked the article for deletion without giving any input on the talk page or making any other attempts to improve the article. And when he was instructed to be constructive, he instead started this deletion request. Very strange and unfriendly behavior. --Veikk0.ma 09:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, the page just needs some work. We also have pages for FX, Phenom, Athlon etc. these are all brands of AMD CPUs, why would we not have one for Ryzen? Cautilus (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep — One of the most hilarious requests for deletion I’ve ever seen. Surely the article does need rework, but deleting it beforehand doesn’t make sense. —  Intel User BabylonAS 11:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. "Needs work" is not a valid delete reason, and the list article is not a replacement. --Vossanova o&lt; 18:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. What a facepalm of a rationale. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - article does not meet any of the typical deletion reasons and the ones proffered here are unconvincing to say the least. Flawed articles on important topics should be improved, not deleted. Sakkura (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article is immature, not unsalvageable. It's an article about a commercial product, which is commonly problematic because there are a lot of people with a stake in the effects, whether emotional or monetary. Improvements are needed. And while the article probably does meet some deletion criteria (e.g. overcategorization), I agree with others that it should be improved, as improvement is always preferable to deletion. The critical problems seem to be 1) whether the page should be about what Ryzen is to a layperson or consumer, and where it fits into the current technological ecosystem, 2) whether it should be a highly technical document which outlines details most readers will find irrelevant, and 3) whether it should include controversial and highly speculative "press". Blog posts about quotes by celebrities (that is what https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-slams-cts-labs-over-amd-vulnerability-report/ is, for example) aren't especially relevant to the long-term informational value any article where the most relevant information is about what the thing *is* rather than who said what about it. I personally came here to find out what Ryzen was, not ponderous details about its design or sensational information regarding speculation over possible(highly technical and unsupported by data) problems. Perhaps there should be a stronger move to make the information less about ephemera and more about things that are more certain to remain both true and significant a year from now. I suspect that the article needs to mature, have speculation and sensationalism removed, and a good-faith attempt to make it impartial without removing information readers will find helpful when (for instance) trying to decide whether the product is relevant to them. Edgewalker81 (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously, because the subject is notable. The nominator needs to learn that the way to approach articles about such obviously notable topics is to either edit the article or discuss on its talk page what the content should be, rather than to make silly deletion arguments and put templates in deletion discussions based on conspiracy theories about "fans". I am not a "fan" of any chip manufacturer, and had to just check which chip manufacturer my computer, which I have been using for about 9 years, uses. I, like most people, only care whether it does the job I want it to do, rather than whose chip it uses, and base responses to deletion proposals on notability, not childish fanboyism. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)