Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannonlake
- 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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Cannonlake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Request by IP on talk page -
This article seems to be unconstructive and offended WP:BALL. May I delete this article?
See what I do? Talk to me? This is 113.253.22.52. Posted 10:07 UTC. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as this reason is nonsense. Speedy more like it, as this reason is inappropriate. --Lesbiangirl (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep but give the article more context to prevent spurious deletion requests. Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 2 October
2013 (UTC)
- Delete because there is no RELEVANT information about Cannonlake, and Intel didn't list Cannonlake as it's future roadmap, and ACCORDING TO WP:BALL, Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. 1.36.197.87 talk to me? 09:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The IP is a sock, duplicate delete reason. Already stated on the talk page, the IP is identicial to the IP address(the two IP's are one in the same) --Lesbiangirl (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, the IP both being Hong Kong is very suspicious. Someone must be using other IP's (as open WiFi) and hong kong IP's are very rare. --Lesbiangirl (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. It's pretty obvious. How often do IPs use signatures? Plus, the are both the same ""talk to me!". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, the IP both being Hong Kong is very suspicious. Someone must be using other IP's (as open WiFi) and hong kong IP's are very rare. --Lesbiangirl (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The IP is a sock, duplicate delete reason. Already stated on the talk page, the IP is identicial to the IP address(the two IP's are one in the same) --Lesbiangirl (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2013 (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.