English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/TILE64

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. @pple 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

TILE64

Delete nn product from a nn company; fails WP:CORP and WP:N Carlossuarez46 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article from reliable third-party sources. A quick google search also provides very few hits for this product as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep This Processor is all over the Technology News, and noted by several large Hardware Companies. -- Jimmi Hugh 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep and improve. They're cited in Slashdot and Ars Technica. Not so sure about slashdot, but Ars should pass WP:RS. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ meets notability. [1] [2] [3] Carlosguitar 04:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep, definitely notable. [4] [5] [6] [7]

Tilera creativity to do a 64 core processor while Intel and AMD only did 4 core until today, makes more than notable, but also part of computing history. Carlosguitar 12:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above. Jakew 12:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Mhocker 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Tilera as only product at this time. Tilera is not notable except for the TILE64. Later on we can split them which is nicer than deleting both articles now.Ttiotsw 14:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Public information on this chip became available on 8/20. Today, one day later, Google News returns more than ten independent articles from well-known sources on this processor. This clearly meets wp:n. Gavin 03:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. --Patrik Hägglund 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, although I wouldn't mind a Merge with Tilera for now. +mt 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete on grounds that this is spam. The references cited for this product are for articles in trade magazines whose content is limited to new product announcements. The content of these Advertorials do not confer notability on this product. --Gavin Collins 15:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep, as per other sources plus Technology Guardian's article on them, which actually goes out of its way to clarify that parallel processing has been around since the INMOS transputer, so what the company is doing is nothing new; that software for these processors will be ages away. If I am not mistaken, advertorials are designed to market a product positively and not suggest its developments are just improvements on achievements made in the 80s ("advertisers will not spend money to describe the flaws of their products"). Rubberkeith 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It appears that more and more sources are becoming available about this micro-controller on news aggregation sites daily. Burntsauce 18:07, 23 August 2007 (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.