Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer organization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 No consensus. (Article was rewritten entirely, so most of the AFD discussion became irrelevant; no prejudice against re-nomination.). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:23Z
Computer organization[edit]
Article merely pushes non-standard terminology; standard terminology is to use "computer architecture" to encompass both areas mentioned. RandomP 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep. Was a POV fork of Computer architecture, if a fairly innocuous one, but now it isn't. -Amarkov blahedits 15:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]Delete andredirect. Even if it was a standard term, this particular meaning is explained in the intro to the "real" article, and isn't really different or important enough to warrant its own article. yandman 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete and redirect - per yandmand's comment, and the article hardly contains any content that is worth keeping. Jayden54 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Why delete first then redirect, rather than just redirecting? Doesn't deleting destroy potentially useful history? My appologies if the answer to this is somewhere really obvious. delldot | talk 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good point. Too many company press release AfD discussions have turned me into a real Genghis... It's usually used to stop the author just reverting back to the original, but I don't think whoever wrote this article is that passionate about hardware. yandman 19:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that's a good point, I wasn't thinking of that. However, it's good to actually have a moderated discussion prior to what amounts to blanking an article, isn't it? I'd suggest to the closing admit to close this with status "turn into redirect", or something like that. RandomP 19:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Why delete first then redirect, rather than just redirecting? Doesn't deleting destroy potentially useful history? My appologies if the answer to this is somewhere really obvious. delldot | talk 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on rewrite. Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s rewrite of the article did change the definition to mean exactly the opposite of what it previously meant. I still believe that "computer architecture" is a term encompassing "computer organization", though it now appears there are opposite opinions of which part of computer architecture should be considered "computer organization". Google comes up with a third definition, noticeably different both from the old and the new article version. Wikipedia isn't the place to decide terminology wars, and to me (a non-professional observer) that appears the most likely explanation. RandomP 01:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous version of the article was based solely upon one single person's submission to another wiki. (The URL for it is in the earliest version of the article, q.v..) The current version of the article is based upon computer science books, which all agree on what computer organization is — as, indeed, does the university course summary that you have linked to. That the person who submitted the content to that other wiki got what computer organization is egregiously wrong, and indeed, completely the opposite of what it is, is not a reason to dispute the necessity for this article. It's simply yet another demonstration of why wikis, with no peer review or fact checking processes, are not good sources. It's also a good demonstration of how a few minutes' work with Google Books would have found the books that were being talked about on the article's talk page. Uncle G 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we have consensus now that there is something called "computer organization", that it's to do with building and designing computer hardware (i.e. what is commonly known as "computer architecture"), and that it involves box diagrams, and implementing a computer architecture (note article). In any case, the article is now not exclusively about terminology (if only through mentioning the box diagrams) and should thus be expanded and possibly merged with computer architecture, not deleted. Keep RandomP 11:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous version of the article was based solely upon one single person's submission to another wiki. (The URL for it is in the earliest version of the article, q.v..) The current version of the article is based upon computer science books, which all agree on what computer organization is — as, indeed, does the university course summary that you have linked to. That the person who submitted the content to that other wiki got what computer organization is egregiously wrong, and indeed, completely the opposite of what it is, is not a reason to dispute the necessity for this article. It's simply yet another demonstration of why wikis, with no peer review or fact checking processes, are not good sources. It's also a good demonstration of how a few minutes' work with Google Books would have found the books that were being talked about on the article's talk page. Uncle G 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article could be improved rather than deleted. Yuser31415 04:53, 26 December 2006 (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.