Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill architecture

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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mill architecture[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Possible vaporware; Nothing to show for progress in over a decade; Article also reads like an advertisement. Hexware (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not Architecture so I've removed it from the list of Architecture related discussions) on the basis it's very much avery lengthy advert based almost entirely from the source company and developer. Insufficient evidence of independent reliable coverage online to show it's worth saving (though 7 years of advertising on Wikipedia means the article has already served its intended purpose). Sionk (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources required to establish notability. The EE Times article comes closest; that's a reliable source, but it's an interview where Ivan Godard, the inventor, obviously a primary source, provides all the content. None of the other sources are helpful. The Hackaday and Linley Group sources offer helpful secondary coverage but can't be taken as reliable as we use the term. I agree the content is also problematic (none of it is sourced) but content is not a concern at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Problematic computer-related article that is very "tech wordy", but not otherwise notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2021 (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.