Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMD vs Intel

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMD vs Intel[edit]

While there has been much ink spilled about AMD and Intel, I don't see how this article could be developed neutrally, benchmarks tend biased. Additionally there are many strong competitors in any marketplace, do each of those need to be listed? Ford vs GM, Microsoft vs Apple -- Reflex Reaction 16:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons given above, though if not deleted i Weak Keep/Move Blainstar's edits show some of the potential of the article, but the rewritten content it should be move to a more neutral title such as Comparison of AMD and Intel processors -- Reflex Reaction 16:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC). updated 20:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV currently without emperical evidence and stating that one processor will be better at something is likely to be a gross oversimplification/generalisation. Can't really imagine how it can be improved. chowells 11:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles like this are inherently original research. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 12:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research and inherent overgeneralization. People who need to compare them should read the articles we have on the individual processors or let themselves be informed at the reference desk (or better yet in a shop). Articles like this are unlikely to ever be neutral. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherently POV, and as chowells this is a vast oversimplification of the topic...--Isotope23 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overgeneralised original research --Alynna 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There might someday be a need for an article like this, akin to SCO v. IBM, but not at the moment. — squell 00:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As it stands the stub is less than useful, on that basis I do not disagree with the editors above. However, the concept bears promise as an expanded article. It needn't be original research: if you take a look at published sources such as older Hardware Central or newer Tom's Hardware guide you get an idea of the sort of performance information that could be consolidated here. There is no question that GHz is no longer a useful guide to processor speed, and there are so many software benchmarks that endusers have difficulty comparing them. Bringing these aspects to a single place is where a WP article can be helpful. And a completely different form of "AMD vs. Intel" article would be on their legal rivalry noted here --Blainster 09:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand and Keep/possibly Move. The article has been modified to show the kind of promise it may hold. --Blainster 10:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Review sites are great, but I don't consider them proper neutral or journalistic sources. For example, this incident, where AnandTech rectified benchmark results because of pressure from their readers. The lawsuit may be a notable topic in the future, but I think that is too soon to tell squell 22:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. The AnandTech incident is a good reason for marshalling the expertise here to provide some needed education on the relative merits of performance/benchmark claims. On the lawsuit, i think it is the history of legal sparring over the years (ever since the 1986 suit over AMD building 286s) that makes it notable, not what may happen in the future. --Blainster 23:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but could this be reworked in such detail that (compared to AMD) it would necessitate a seperate article? squell 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.