Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socket 3

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. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socket 3

Socket 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

unreferences article on article that does not assert notability SuperSuperBoi (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete Well the socket does exists and is notable but I have to say that the other content is unrefrenced may not be correct. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 08:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I actually don't understand a word in the article, as it's far too technical for me, but a quick gsearch returned quite a few hits and some good info. I think it qualifies under specialised encyclopedic content in any case, being a necessary Intel component to make these fancy typewriters work. It's certainly better off than Socket 2. I thought it also might be a candidate to merge with CPU socket, but looking at that page there is no way all of the sockets would fit in there. I'd tag it with a needs references and "expand" template and move on. --Stomme (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as subject is a notable piece of computer technology, is well covered in reliable sources both secondary and primary, and article does assert notability. Article needs better referencing but that's best handled with tagging, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Incoherent nomination aside, the socket exists and is notable. The article could be better written and referenced, but it'd save everyone a lot of time if the effort invested in nominating was invested in improving instead. General articles are not required to assert notability (although obviously they must still be notable). Asserting notability is a concept limited to WP:Bio. Debate (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dravecky and Debate. Hard to imagine why this is less notable than Socket 1, Socket 2, Socket 5, Socket 7 etc..., and would make the series incomplete if deleted. Granted the article needs work, that's no reason to delete. Keyed In (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep What was the reason for nomination? M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Snow keep notable computer technology, looks like this is ripe for WP:SNOW. nneonneo talk 04:17, 2 June 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.