Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of the Harvard Architecture


 * 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The Myth of the Harvard Architecture

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is an article about a recently published paper on the Harvard architecture. I see two main problems: the first is that the author of the article is in fact the author of the paper so we have a conflict of interest issue and the second is that this paper isn't currently notable (which is not a surprise since it was published only weeks if not days ago). Pichpich (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Pichpich (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I accept the criticism and agree that the paper is not notable. However, I would like to point out that in posting The Myth of the Harvard architecture, my motivation was not to promote my paper. In the long run, I would have no problem in seeing the Myth of the Harvard Architecture deleted as an article. My motivation is to try to draw attention to the nonsense that is in the existing Wikipedia articles entitled 'Harvard architecture' and 'modified Harvard architecture'. I have been concerned about this for some years. Both of those articles are currently flagged (not by me) as having multiple problems including, but not limited to, a complete lack of solid references. My initial thought, having succeeded in getting my paper through peer review and into the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, was simply to start substantially re-writing those two articles (actually I believe there should only be one - 'Harvard architecture' covering 'modified Harvard architecture' also and with the latter redirecting to the former). But I was worried that I would be accused of vandalism. My paper is the first rigorous analysis of this subject. If I were permitted to make substantial changes to those articles, including making them more rigorous and with proper referencing, but removing the many false (and unsupported) statements within them, I reiterate that I would be more than happy that there should be no separate article on 'The Myth...'. My motivation in creating the article was just to raise awareness of how many false statements there are in those two articles.
 * I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that in my edits, I stated explicitly that I would prefer it if someone else would make these edits - because I did not, and do not, wish it to come across as seeking to promote my paper. My interest is in setting the record straight on the Harvard architecture, not in having the credit for it. That said, given that my paper is the only peer-reviewed paper on this whole subject, it would be very strange if there was no reference to it. Rpawson Rpawson (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, in fact what you have written (at Harvard architecture and at The Myth of the Harvard Architecture) is entirely promotional of your paper: rather than using your paper as a reference for factual statements about other things, what you did was write about your paper itself. You are not forbidden from editing the article Harvard architecture, removing unsourced or incorrect material, adding appropriate footnotes, etc. -- but you should do so in a way that is not self-promotional. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as an attempt to get original research into Wikipedia. There is no evidence that the paper published last month has become well-known or influenced the field of computer history. While we do have articles about significant papers, such as the B2FH paper, those articles don't just repeat the content of the paper. Instead they discuss the history and significance of the paper. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is possible for a journal paper to be notable, independent of the research it reports, but only in very rare cases of papers that have become well established as landmarks. A newly published paper cannot meet that standard and to the extent that its findings are novel they cannot be notable yet either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" this ain't. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to userspace. Given this a lot of thought. Can’t have a page on this article, but article itself is perfectly usable as a source, properly published and all. How to be used for just that purpose? Could even merge into Harvard architecture. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would oppose a move to userspace. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, even in userspace. Pichpich (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure WP:OR. PianoDan (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2022 (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.