Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMD K12

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AMD K12[edit]

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

Topic about a future concept where lack of information lies; should not exist yet. EnigmaLord515 (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shortage of information is not a valid reason for deletion. This has been announced for over a year and there are sources to speak to its existence, thus notability. A lack of information with which to build content is regretted, but is likely to be a temporary and improving shortage as development proceeds. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, shortage of information is exactly why this is not notable. If there were more information, namely the ability to test the chip, then independent researchers could provide information that could appear in secondary sources. The general notability guidelines specifically say: Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. There can be not significant coverage without detail. --Bejnar (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete for lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. It is fair to say that all the factually information here is from AMD, since the chip has not been released, hence no independence. Also, Wikipedia is not in the predicting business. "There is many a slip twixt the lip and the cup." Again FN1 & FN2 sources appear to be from press releases. Scott Wasson's piece (FN4) at least brings in some analysis. But as he said in 2014, As always, everything depends on the specifics. AMD has to deliver these products, and they have to perform well in order to matter. That is a pretty suscinct statement that notability can only occur later, hence WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once we have more solid information, we can recreate the page. This could probably be redirected somewhere, but I'm not entirely sure where. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, it's not worth fighting over this. We can come back to this later if it turns out to be vaporware. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough reliable source coverage for this stub article and to satisfy WP:GNG. Stub articles are common in Wikipedia and there's no guideline or policy that I know of, that supports deleting properly sourced stub articles. -- intgr [talk] 09:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but Apollo 11 was notable even before it reached the moon. This is notable within its field and adequately sourced. Thparkth (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – AnandTech and The Tech Report are RS for computer hardware topics. I see sufficient coverage from a quick Google search. sst✈^discuss 11:07, 27 December 2015 (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.