Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speed-demon

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. Cirt (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speed-demon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any references to speed-demon in the context of CPUs anywhere, except used as a synonym for fast. This article has been tagged for not having references since December 2006, and has been tagged for original research since September 2007. The article's talk page is nonexistent. Tpk5010 _Talk^Contribs 02:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just hyperbole used by journalists. Redirect to Speed Demon after deletion. 70.29.215.186 (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This term is not a synonym for "fast". That would be an oversimplification. This term refers to the design philosophy of obtaining performance through high clock rates by using a simple microarchitecture implemented in an aggressive manner (a full-custom methodology, liberal use of dynamic logic, advanced semiconductor technology, etc.) If you can't find references for the use of this term, then you are not looking in the right places! I believe that I have seen this term used in the Microprocessor Report, various papers (mostly from IBM, they argued that the brainiac approach was better than the speed-demon in the early 1990s and notably changed their approach to speed-demon in the late 1990s, more in Fortress Rochester by Dr. Frank G. Soltis), Henessey and Patterson's CA:AQA (one of the appendixes?), various books, and magazines. Your argument for deletion is also largely based on the fact that the article is in a poor state and its been like that for some time. My response is that it is fixable. Being in a poor state for a long time is no grounds for deletion, its grounds for improvement. There are no deadlines. Rilak (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The material seems to be sound. But it really should be included in CPU which is the real topic being dicussed, not the expression "speed-demon." Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Speed demon" in the context of CPU design is what is being discussed by this article. I don't really understand why you think this article should be merged into CPU. If there is some confusion with the phrase in everyday English, then move the article to a better title. Rilak (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phrase just means anything that is really fast. No references are given which establish this as a specific class of CPUs, most likely because no such class exists. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How did you conclude what "speed demon" means in the context of CPUs? How did you conclude that the article has no references? The article has two references at the time of your comment. Both of them define what a speed demon is, give some details as to what the philosophy is about, and provide examples of speed demon CPUs. Your entire argument does not appear to be evidence based. You appear to be just asserting what you believe is the case without even bothering to read the article or the references provided. And as I have said before, we don't call fast (high performance) CPUs "speed demons". Journalists might, but they are not authoritative on matters concerning computer design. Rilak (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.