Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wide Bus

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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wide Bus

Wide Bus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article proposed for deletion but had previously been prodded and had tag removed so not eligable for prod. Reason was 'Unclear context, unreferenced, orphaned, unwikified, non-notable. Tagged thus since Feb without improvement' Davewild (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, all the reasons for the ProDs still apply. JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep at least for the moment. The manuals for these cromenco machines are still lying about. It should be fairly easy to find the sources for the article and determine the validity of it. scope_creep

(talk) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Had a look at the manuals, for processor to 2kZ mem board. Can't find an references this tech. Thing is, its probably valid, as it agrees to bus design for higher WR IO at the time. Pity. scope_creep (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as in the prod - Unclear context, unreferenced, orphaned, unwikified, non-notable. Tagged thus since Feb without improvement. --Stormbay (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete only because it is not able to be verified right now yuckfoo (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete if there are not two secondary references available specifically regarding this technology, then it is not notable. References soley from manufacturers producing equipment using this technique would not meet independence requirements of WP:N.Garrie 11:28, 23 November 2007 (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.