Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cache memory
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Keep Anyone that sees fit may move this to main.. — xaosflux Talk 03:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Cache memory[edit]
Draft from September 2014 that is already covered in mainspace. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nomination suggests redirection, with no reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and no value to a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Don't redirect or blank. Cache memory is a redirect to CPU cache, which has different content. We may need to contemplate a WP:MERGE, but I'm thinking that this may end up with multiple sub-articles. For example, the very detailed section on cache coherence probably needs to be WP:SPLIT to Cache coherence#Coherency protocols. This needs to be handled by editors that know something about the subject, which appears to be none of the participants in this MFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is it a useful draft? This was originally a stub, then a one-person page dump of over 120k text with very erratic sourcing and numerous images uploaded by that same (somewhat suspect) was done back in late 2014, moved to draftspace and other than some minimal clean-up, it seems like no one has found it particularly useful. It may be junk from a crank from all I can tell but the issues here are expressed on the talk page as well. It may be a WP:TNT but if you think it is could be useful, I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it could be useful, but it is not my expertise. It could be a fork of existing article content, maybe I should look harder. I note that it is not obviously the same as the article under the same title. If potentially useful, until someone knowledgeable says it is not, I don't think being old is a good reason to delete it, or even to blank it. It, its content, should remain findable by an internal Wikipedia search. Note that the routine deletion of AfC materials was motivated by massive numbers of trivially worthless pages. This draft is not typical of that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ricky81682, it has serious copyediting needs, but I think that at least parts of it could be useful to expand existing articles. User:Dsimic, can you take a look, or suggest someone else who might be able to make sense of this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you think it could be useful, I'll withdraw it but the first step would probably be to cut everything unsourced and work off the actual sourced material and images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ricky81682, it has serious copyediting needs, but I think that at least parts of it could be useful to expand existing articles. User:Dsimic, can you take a look, or suggest someone else who might be able to make sense of this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it could be useful, but it is not my expertise. It could be a fork of existing article content, maybe I should look harder. I note that it is not obviously the same as the article under the same title. If potentially useful, until someone knowledgeable says it is not, I don't think being old is a good reason to delete it, or even to blank it. It, its content, should remain findable by an internal Wikipedia search. Note that the routine deletion of AfC materials was motivated by massive numbers of trivially worthless pages. This draft is not typical of that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is it a useful draft? This was originally a stub, then a one-person page dump of over 120k text with very erratic sourcing and numerous images uploaded by that same (somewhat suspect) was done back in late 2014, moved to draftspace and other than some minimal clean-up, it seems like no one has found it particularly useful. It may be junk from a crank from all I can tell but the issues here are expressed on the talk page as well. It may be a WP:TNT but if you think it is could be useful, I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Move to mainspace immediately over redirect (for future cleanup or merge with CPU cache). If there is a good reason to merge it into CPU cache directly instead, then keep. This one needs cleanup, but is a valid topic and the draft contains enough content to survive in mainspace. Its deletion would be a net loss to the project. VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.