Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allwinner A10

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 do not retain as standalone articles. Whether, what, and where to merge is an editorial decision. For the moment, the listed articles will be redirected to Allwinner Technology, with history left intact for any editors interested in performing a merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allwinner A10[edit]

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

Per WP:COMPANY, specifically WP:PRODUCT, this article does not have notability on its own. It is just listing specifications of the product and does not prove notability. User226 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same issue regarding WP:PRODUCT. Most appear to have been created by the same user and are all products of the Allwinner company. :

User226 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A similar article was deleted and discussed here for the same reasons: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allwinner_A31s

Article Allwinner_A20 was created by User:Sudozero. The rest appear to have all be created by User:PersephoneII.

Also, AllWinner_A1X Seems to suffer the same issues, but I am not sure if it could be expanded as a family and become notable. It may be best to take this one to AFD by itself. User226 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it's not notable, gotta keep it clean! clean out that hash table!" <- your argument. i'm not sure how wikipedia is hurt by having this information. is there somewhere we can consolidate this information? -- Sudozero (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if that was too harsh. i'm just frustrated with the common wikipedia culture of deleting information, because someone thinks it's "not noteable," whatever that means. last time i checked the information was useful to me. -- Sudozero (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:COMPANY, product information can be under the main company's article. A product should only have its own page if the product, in itself, is notable. A product does not inherit notability from the parent company. User226 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after merging any relevant data into the company article. —Geoff Capp (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting an article after merging content would break the attribution of the content to its authors, see WP:MERGE: "Merging—regardless of the amount of information kept—should always leave a redirect (or, in some cases, a disambiguation page) in place." 109.76.180.21 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Allwinner chipsets - I can agree that the individual SoCs aren't notable on teir own, but would it be feasible if they're merged into a list rather than just dump them into the main article? Blake Gripling (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge These items are significant, since they are used in millions of low-powered devices. Furthermore, the A10 is something of a first in the free software community, since it can run with fully-free (non-proprietary) software (including userspace, kernel, bootloader, "bios"/u-boot, and no need for microcode). this little chip may be meaningless to you, but it is hardly meaningless to me. 1 -- Sudozero (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Allwinner SoCs - the SoCs themselves aren't notable, but it's worth keeping the information. We should merge the information under one page and break it up into two tables (one for the A-family and one for the F-family). Look to the Exynos (system on chip) article for inspiration. Tapped-out (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Allwinner Technology or create a list. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a user who visits this information frequently and does embedded development. If the information was under Allwinner SOCs or something it would be good, I would just hate to see the information be deleted entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.25.42 (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [WP:ITUSEFUL]] is not a reason to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the table in Allwinner Technology seems enough to have in an encyclopedia. Details for any specific product should be available from the vendor; not Wikipedia's job to supply data sheets. W Nowicki (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to one general page. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2013 (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.