Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rare CPUs

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. — Aitias // discussion 15:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rare CPUs[edit]

The author, named Rarecpus, originally had a short blurb about rare CPUs followed by a link to rarecpus.com. The author has since then (improperly) removed speedy deletion tags for advertising twice and has removed a PROD tag. In the meantime, the author has added a list of numerous sites related to rare CPUs—and the link for rarecpus.com remains at the top.

At one point, the author briefly included text noting that these sites have NOTHING to sell or gain by having their link posted", but that's immaterial because promotion for the purpose of increasing traffic to websites is also against Wikipedia policy.

The applicable guidelines are:

The person who had placed the PROD notice had claimed "non-notable hobby" as a reason for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic page. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article mostly reads like an essay but worse than that, the topic violates WP:NPOV. What makes a CPU "rare"? And what makes rare CPUs an encyclopedic topic? Themfromspace (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update The author has just removed the long list of links—while leaving the link to what I assume is his site, strengthening my conviction that promoting that site is the primary intent behind the article. Even in the absence of that link, the article still appears to be a personal analysis. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update I just discovered that the text of the article is copied from the author's own web page, which has an "all rights reserved" copyright notice on it, so there is also a WP:permission issue. In addition, the site doesn't really supplement the article, in that it doesn't provide additional reference information about the topic. It also means the article is WP:original research. Finally, on that website it says, "I have joined thousands of people worldwide in an effort to publicize this new hobby, chip collecting." So this is a new hobby, making it less likely that WP:notability is established. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case could we speedy-delete it as a copyright violation? Themfromspace (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably not, no. As long as we believe the author really is the author the page (which seems highly likely) he is quite entitled to publish his work twice under two different licenses. JulesH (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached (and because I discovered today that it had somehow not been included previously on a daily log).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the above reasons Pstanton 22:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Comment Also, I think the creator, rarecpus has a conflict of interest in writing an article like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree with that. The article doesn't seem to be promotional, just a topic that the author is clearly quite involved in. We don't want to disqualify experts from contributing to their subjects. JulesH (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research sourced only from self-published sources produced by the article's author (and, in the current version, completely unsourced). JulesH (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (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.