Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/68h

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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 19:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 68h

Appears to be nonsense. If not nonsense, then redundant. Mirror Vax 16:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I regard more than half of it as nonsense, as I've previously stated on the talk page; the rest of it could be made into a category, if it even merits that. (n.b.: if the article is, in fact, removed, Category:Motorola products will have to be edited or reworked a bit.) In any case, I weakly support deletion. --moof 00:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• It took less than a minute to do a google search for "68h microprocessor" which produced 1200 links. Most were either reprints of the wikipedia's article, or the 68h was 0x68. But several of the links were real looking authoritative links:

...The Motorola 680x0/0x0/m68k/68k/68K family of CISC microprocessor CPU chips were 32-bit from the start, and were the primary competition for the Intel x86 family of chips. The 68k family built upon Motorola's 8/16-bit 68h series of processors. -- Geo Swan 06:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That link you cite? It's a summarization of the Motorola 680x0 article from Wikipedia! Talk about circular references... and it's nonsense there, too. If you're going to cite, please cite non-wikipedia sources. --moof 07:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep precursor to 68K family hence notable --Pypex 20:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep per Pypex, but the inclusion of the 65xx processors in this article is perhaps questionable as Dogcow has said on the article's talk. -- AJR | Talk 01:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (updated, see below)
  • Which parts of this article do you think are true? I can find no evidence that the subject of the article, the "68h family", exists. Since the whole point of the article is to explain the "68h family", it ought to be something that exists outside of Wikipedia. Mirror Vax 03:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • move to Motorola 6800 family (or something similar, if people don't like that) and remove references to 65xx processors as unverifiable. Rationale for keeping 6800 family content still as per Pypex -- AJR | Talk 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep - Links do exist documenting the existence of the 68h and its relationship both to later motorala designs and the 6502. -- Geo Swan 06:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe Wikipedia is a cancer on the web, if people believe nonsense due to "real looking authoritative links" containing copies of Wikipedia. Mirror Vax 12:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Granted many of the links google turned up were clearly copies of the wikipedia. But what makes you claim the link I offered was copied from the wikipedia? -- Geo Swan 15:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you serious? It says "preview: http://en.wikipedia.org" and when you click on it, it goes to Wikipedia. So that's a little bit of a hint, plus the fact that the text is the same. Mirror Vax 16:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or rename to Motorola 6800 CPU family 132.205.44.134 00:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT look at FOLDOC entry: http://foldoc.org/foldoc.cgi?query=6800&action=Search — 132.205.45.148 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT the MOS Technology 6502 article also says that the 6501 was pin compatible with the 6800. 132.205.45.148 18:51, 6 December 2005 (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.