Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C167 family (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to C166 family. Apparently, the information has already been merged Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C167 family

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

Renominating. No consensus to do anything in last AFD, which was open for 3 weeks. Doesn't seem to warrant a merge. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing worth merging if you ask me. Non-notable product, plain and simple. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 09:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ALREADY merged Did not remove the deletion notice. So: Quick merge Tagremover (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone has to remove the deletion tag to get the redirect active. @Angrysockhop: Non-notable product: I guess you have no experience. But: Poor article. Other languages are better. Tagremover (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't have any experience. Not in the context of microprocessors. And I shouldn't need any to see notability. If the c167 family of microprocessors is notable, then that should be made readily apparent. From my perspective, that of an average layperson, the product is non-notable, and neither the original article nor the merged section under c166 family seem to sufficiently explain why this particular product is notable. If you happen to be more informed on the subject, which I'm assuming you are, then please, explain it further. Not all of us are engineers, my brother. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to delete all stubs? You are confusing article-quality with notability. Tagremover (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I want. I want you to explain why this seemingly run-of-the-mill product is actually notable. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 03:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to C166 family or XE166 family. Not notable enough to stand on its own. Notability not established for the proposed targets either. --Kvng (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2012 (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.