Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APRIL

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 keep. Nicely improved.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] APRIL

APRIL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

not notable, doesn't seem to physically exist, the sole findable reference is the one cited in the page

  • Description in reputable scholar literature is well enough for inclusion. I wonder if the proposer knows what scholar literature is.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. So, the main paper on APRIL has plenty of citations. But is there more about it than that? It's hard to search due to the common word as its name. Put another way, how many of those 334 citations are trivial mentions of it among a list of other RISC architectures, and how many use the APRIL architecture specifically in a nontrivial way? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment User:SummerWithMorons is the creator of said article, which only had one edit prior to RFD. And yeah, I'm familiar with "scholar literature" [sic] - which is precisely why I'm questioning the notability, having been all too acquainted with one-shot research projects that are rather unnotable. At very least, the article should be tagged a stub; if the article should stay in wikipedia, IMNSHO, it should at least give information other than "it's a CPU that (through some unstated means) is purportedly good at context switching." --moof (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename. It turns out that APRIL is not really a standalone CPU architecture, but a set of modifications to another, much more well known architecture, the SPARC. The combination of APRIL and SPARC is known as Sparcle, and is the basis for a multiprocessor called Alewife. I refactored the article to put more emphasis on the big system and less on the context-switching CPU modifications, and I now think it stands alone well enough; a Google scholar search for the alewife multiprocessor found 1230 papers referring to it, 41 papers on this system with "Alewife" in their titles, and all four of the papers now mentioned in the article are well cited in Google scholar. But, with this new emphasis, the article should be renamed to Alewife (multiprocessor); I was bold and did that part already. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: looks like it's been whipped into shape.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2008 (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.