Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super-threading

Super-threading was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

The article has had next to no content for 14 months, and I don't see that changing any time soon; there appears to be little consistent information on the net about what Super-threading actually DOES, and no processor has used (or will use) the technology. --DaveJB 10:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term is currently in use, even it seems to mean slightly different things to different people. This confusion is of course no reason for deletion. Likewise, whether super-threading is implemented in current processors or not is immaterial to discussion in VfD. In summary, I can't see a reason for deletion (and DaveJB did not gave any). The article should be expanded, not delete. jni 11:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with jni, [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 14:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a reasonable substub. It just needs to be expanded.  Its lack of current use should be noted in the article. Wolfman 15:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  15:43, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Then list it as a requested article. It's doing no good in its present state. If just leaving it there were going to make it grow, it would have grown. So, let's try something different. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) By the way, if anyone wants evidence that substubs can do a small amount of harm, try a Google search on "super-threading." The Google-goodness of Wikipedia and its mirrors is so high that roughly half of the hits now bring up only this useless one-liner. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: If consensus goes for "keep," then send to WP:RFE.  I fully agree with Dpbsmith:  substubs hurt us a lot.  I'm not worried about the Google user as much as I am the person who comes to Wikipedia because it's "supposed to be good with computer terms," reads this and then not only never uses us again as a reference, but starts spreading the word that we're awful.  What is the argument for keeping ... that one day it might be good?  A null one day might be filled in, too. Geogre 18:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think substubs are a bad idea, provided the topic is encyclopedic. That said, I haven't heard anything concrete about this term. Unless someone can give some kind of a solid definition by the end of VfD, I'm going to need to vote Delete . Otherwise, I worry we'll have articles of every permutation of a modifier word (meta, hyper, super, etc etc) and a technical term, and we won't know what any of them mean, because some journalist decided to coin a phrase, or similar. --Improv 20:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It appears to be well-defined now. Keep. --Improv 01:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a valid topic - and send to RFE. --DMG413 16:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 'delete unless someone adds references to the term being used. Mozzerati 22:57, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.