Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intel processor confusion

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete, merge/move discussion can be done on the article's talk page. --W.marsh 21:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intel processor confusion

This unfortunately-named article only causes confusion. List of Intel microprocessors is quite adequate. Ezeu 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I think this article falls under the "indiscriminate collection of information" category. Aplomado - UTC 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since it's poorly named and the individual processors have their own lists. (But, yes, Intel processor names are too confusing!) -- Mithent 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge (to the appropriate pages). I don't see lists for individual Intel microprocessor families (List of Intel microprocessors is higher-level than this page, and doesn't have all the detailed information that this page has), but, by analogy to List of AMD Athlon microprocessors, List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors, etc.; if the information, the information on this page should go into pages listing Pentium 4 or Netburst microprocessors, Pentium M microprocessors, Intel Core microprocessors, etc.. The "List of AMD XXX microprocessors" pages appear to use marketing names for "XXX", so, by analogy, I'd use marketing terms, so Xeons would be separate from Pentium 4's, although that then raises the question of whether a Pentium 4 is the same as a Pentium D (the D being a two-cores-on-a-package 4), whether a Yonah Intel Core is the same as a Pentium M, etc.. I wouldn't hold up the nuking of Intel processor confusion for a decision on that, though. "Intel processor confusion" is a bit of a bizarre and "un-encyclopedic" name, even if the information is useful. Guy Harris 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If the information is useful, and its the name that is un-encyclopedic, perhaps a rename and cleanup will do. I am starting to doubt this AfD nomination. --Ezeu 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's more than just the name; I assume the "confusion" is that there's a metric crapload of processors with "Pentium" in the name that have different characteristics and, sometimes, different microarchitectures (NetBurst in Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium EE, and some Xeon processors; Pentium M in some other processors, including the Yonah Intel Core microprocessors). If the goal is to clear up confusion about processors with "Pentium" in the name, it could list any such processors - perhaps we could start by renaming the page "List of Intel Pentium processors", and allow classic Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, etc. to be added to it by those sufficiently anal-retentive to care. :-) It wouldn't list the current Intel Core processors, though, as they're not Pentiums, nor would it list Celeron or Xeon processors - they'd have their own "list of" pages.

We might want to add a column for the microarchitecture, given that Intel's used the same marketing name for processors with different microarchitectures (more so than AMD, who've used Athlon and Duron only for K7 processors, and have used Athlon 64, Opteron, and Turion only for K8 processors, although they've apparently used Sempron for both K7's and K8's). Guy Harris 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if people think this page should simply be deleted (as opposed to renamed), would they say the same for the various "List of AMD XXX microprocessors" page? (I wouldn't argue if they said "yes", but if they said "no", I'd ask why a list of Pentiums is different from a list of Athlons.) Guy Harris 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The Xeon page has a list of Xeon processors; by analogy to that, I'd merge the stuff about Pentium 4/D/EE from Intel processor confusion with the table on the Pentium 4 page, and move the stuff about Pentium M to a table on the Intel Core page (because it's only about Yonah). If the merging doesn't result in any change to the pages in question (because all the information from Intel processor confusion is already there), that amounts to Delete. Guy Harris 09:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not ... well ... this. Bucketsofg 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Some kind of article that disambiguates the variety of different chips a customer might encounter in a "Pentium" PC might be useful, but not this. Maybe divide into groups by characteristics that actually affect the consumer. Thatcher131 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. I like List of Intel microprocessors, but it's missing some info, that perhaps might not be of interest to the average consumer, but that will definitely interest the more advanced enthusiast. Thank you for reminding me how much I loathe Intel for naming four different processors "Celeron" and moving the Pentium 4 series to an all-digit nomenclature that doesn't mean a thing. ;) Usonophile 04:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into appropriate processor family pages if not present. -- Mithent 12:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Rename to "List of Intel Pentium processors" per above and tag with for expansion. Seems a shame to just toss this info away. As for merging into various articles, that breaks up the information so completely is as to constitute (unlikes most merges) an effective deletion. The whole point of this article is to collect info from various articles into one easy-to-access table. I'm assuming that people exist who would find this info useful. Herostratus 14:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Herostratus. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Intel microprocessors. There it may have chance to be maintained, which obviously didn;t happne with current text. Pavel Vozenilek 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Info is useful in the proper context. ProhibitOnions 22:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Pavel. Eivind^speak! 23:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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.