Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DevSlp

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) Natg 19 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DevSlp[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a bit technical and not sure if it is notable enough for its own page. Feel it fails WP:NOTFAQ. Perhaps redirect to Serial ATA#SATA revision 3.2 - 16 Gbit/s - 1969 MB/s? Gbawden (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article creator There seems to be three complaints. Too technical? Not notable enough? WP:NOTFAQ? I believe it meets the standards of notability. Specifically it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" the existing Tom's hardware link, and the two new links added show that it meets the standard of notability. I don't think it's too technical. I saw it was a feature of some hard drives I was considering buying, so I wanted to know more. I don't build hard drives, but I can install them. But I think that that is who cares about DevSlp. "feel"ing that it fails NotFaq? I think the nominator would have to be more clear, because I don't see anything in the article that meets any of the notfaq criteria. McKay (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I think it's too early to tell if it will be notable. Yes, it exists, has been published, and has claims, but I don't know if it will get widely adopted. Right now, we mostly have just marketing claims. Current HDDs and SSDs have power-management features already. I really doubt that this product will do anything like what is claimed unless you first specifically "de-tune" the drive's existing power-management, or otherwise fudge the numbers. But I could certainly be wrong. My recommendation: let's wait and see if it becomes significant, based on WP:RS of demonstrated effects and adoption in real life, not just claims of what it "can" do. Actually, I'm okay for leaving the article as is while we wait, but not with linking it to current pages; but since we don't like pages that aren't linked, that amounts to delete for now. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: FWIW, to me DevSleep seems notable enough to have an article of its own – at least, it became part of an official standard. Though, article should be slightly expanded to provide a little better context, so it's clear that DevSleep is part of the SATA revision 3.2 etc. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Sufficient coverage in WP:RS to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2014 (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.