Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units

Add links
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. LFaraone 03:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units

[edit]
Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominating: :Comparison of AMD graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per WP:NOT#STATS, there's no discussion of this vast array of numbers and it's not clear what purpose is served by listing offical specifications as no conclusions are drawn from the "comparison". It may be useful but that's not a reason to keep as it's not encyclopedic. Pontificalibus (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you could nominate the whole category in such manner... seriously the article got plenty attention from the admins and noone got idea it must be deleted--Prandr (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These articles should be deleted. It not a question for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.241.13 (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following articles also should be removed. They also do not differ from those articles.
None of the models listed in the tables have their own articles. This is a simply an excessive list of primary data. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the individual models may not have their own pages, but all of the product generations do (e.g. GeForce 256, GeForce 400 Series). --ElTchanggo (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Keep These two articles (and the other comparison articles as well) do qualify as "encyclopedic" by the way they use the information and fact concerning each product, to inform simple and straight forward about the products. If this article qualifies for deletion, then all articles about CPU's and hardware must also be in the same qualification, which is absurd. I don't understand of all the millions of articles on the English Wikipedia, that these article should be nominated. They have been active for years, with many users contributing, and never have anyone doubted their encyclopedic value. 88.88.19.14 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these are essentially navigation pages to existing articles in the series of processors with some technical specs that differentiate the various processors. The prose part is in the individual linked articles. I am not sure prosefying the stats will aid the reader since comparing in a chart is much easier. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I find these pages very useful when I am trying to quickly find info on various processors. (User:Dzhozef) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep all These pages are extremely useful and convenient. They are by far the best compilation of this kind of information on the web. WinstonKap (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep all. This is kind of article as "WikiLeaks", "Georgia and Russia south-osetian conflict", "George Bush and 9/11". This is kind of information that is unique, extremely hard to find, not to mention to summarize, extremely informative, page that has high value AND high number of clicks, page that highers Wikipedia noveau in direction of "source for priceless information" instead of "well written, well known, dead, uninteresting and useless nonsense". Extremely strong keep. Even page about Doom - the game from 1993 is less important than this one. 78.34.108.211 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is solely trust-able source on the internet for the comparison between GPUs from NVIDIA. Rather than to search for each card separately it saves the hassle by keeping all the information streamlined. Comparing it to other pages this avoids the diversion of advertisements by keeping only the details out and remove the unnecessary stress on the new innovations themselves. prafiles - Prakhar Shukla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prafiles (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all Not encyclopedic? We have articles ranging from gossip on celebrity relations to pedicures, and this is chosen for deletion? As can be seen from their references, the entries above have a history of reliability. Contrary to the opinions of some, an encyclopedia is not restricted to prose & media. Charts are not just viable, but necessary. This table collection organizes and outlines a history of GPUs that wouldn't be easily grasped through lengthy explanations for each card. Wikipedia is not limited to the tastes of a few elect but a database for all people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.183.92 (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (probably all, although I haven't looked at any besides this one; if they're in the same format, they should be treated equally). At best, this is a list of statistical data collected together into some nice tables. Helpful information, sure, but WP:NOT in the least bit encyclopedic. At worst, one could argue this is a form of adverstising, as the "article"'s purpose is to list detailed specifications of products without any context. Some above mention things like "it's an organizational list"--no, no it's not--if it were, it would list only the name of each item with links--instead, it's full specs. Another mentions that Wikipedia is "a database for all people." No, no it's not--it's an encyclopedia, not a database. Our job is not to collect every fact in the world, and it never has been (insofar as policy and guidelines are concerned). Others are concerned that converting this to prose will make comparisons more difficult--good, I say. Again, we aren't here for people to look up details to do comparison shopping. WP:NOT exists for a very good reason--because the project needs clear limitations on what counts as encyclopedic information and what does not. That some find this useful is not enough; I'm sure there must be some that would find every possible piece of info (true or false) to be potentially useful. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who would advertise a ten year old processor? A new one comes out every 18 months, and just two generations, or three years, might as well be 100 years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new to posting and editing here but having looked at most of these pages several times I could assert that these pages of wikipedia are a valuable resource for like minded individuals who are interested in both the facts about new technologies and background in the area to look and see where we are coming from and get ideas about what may lie ahead. since when are charts and lists not included in large articles in an encyclopedia? granted these pages (the ones on graphics cards in particular, but the ones on CPUs as well) are not a typical encylopedia page but link to pages on generations or families of CPUs or GPUs that may or may not have parts of these charts/lists as part of their contents as well as prose on advances and features that are constantly made/added to/with these items. I might suggest changing the name of the graphics related pages to "list" instead of "comparison" to make them better match the ones on processors and make changes to links from other pages to them accordingly. altermately, I might make sure that the relevant portions of the lists/charts are a part of their related pages before any serious consideration is made of deleting the master list. I will say is is quite convenient to scroll up and down the page backward and forward in time to compare the details of a company's various families of Graphics processors, but i suppose one could look at adjacent open windows or tabs of the individual pages but you would probably have to get there from the likes of the nvidia gforce or amd radeon pages and switch windows and tabs to do it. i would mention that I have seen other lists of this nature with links to other related pages and I don't see them as candidates for deletion. does someone have a bias towards not having this sort of information readily available to the masses here versus other questionably less valuable content? Please give careful consideration to any major changes in regards to the pages in question. I guess I am in favor of either keeping all, moving data to other related pages, or maybe making some relatively minor changes in an attempt to make the gods in charge of this stuff look at these things with more favor than perhaps they do now.Jtenorj (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ALL | Whats the point of an encyclopedia if there is no reference material? I understand that there are those who like discussion, however, there are those of us who look up this information an a regular basis for reference. Considering the pace of the computing industry this is a great reference to compare the latest technology with older technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyk Yevarh (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep All This is a well-organized compendium of relevant, easily-verifiable information about a notable series of products, not an indiscriminate collection of data. The table format aids the user in comparing two specific products and reaching his own conclusions. Any further discussion about a particular product, if/when necessary, is included in (or can be added to) the articles about a specific product family (e.g. GeForce 400 Series and Evergreen (GPU family)) and the wikilinks and references therein. ElTchanggo (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I routinely use several of these pages (ATI, Nvidia, Intel, and Opteron). Without them it's virtually impossible to make any specific use of the information on their relevant Product pages, to compare products from various vendors -- or even to compare a single vendor across multiple product lines. I am not aware of any other reasonably organized source of this information; the vendors sometimes provide similar database information (for example, ark.intel.com has a subset of this information for most Intel processors) but such sources are vulnerable to the vagaries of the vendors' marketing departments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.131.186 (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All It is encyclopedic and personally I find it highly useful. Google lists it 9th place simply by searching for nvidia. If you don't like the word comparison then rename it to listing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.180.207.201 (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, key statistics of notable products are encyclopedic, and list/comparison articles like those under discussion are very good in presenting that encyclopedic information in a useful way. Amalthea 15:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All I work with a research group with several projects in GPGPU technologies; these articles are extremely valuable for such endeavors. Because the vendors attempt to obfuscate this information, well referenced tables with explanation and vital statistics (which is, by definition, encyclopedic...), like the current articles, are critical, and ARE the central point of reference for tracking down technical information on GPUs. PAPPP (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All These tables of otherwise difficult-to-compile information are valuable resources for professionals and enthusiasts, consumers of all grades. Losing these tables would be a serious loss for anyone who needs to look up or compare specifications. One could reasonably say these tables are, for their target audience, just as important as the ones found at Conversion_of_units. Tabular data is not necessarily un-encyclopedic just because of its format. Dan.liberatore (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was - this is simply an echoing of primary data - if we summarised secondary sources that made a comparison and reached conclusions, then this comparison article would be valid, but to simply list numbers is not encyclopedic.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comparisons and conclusions are better left to the individual pages about a particular product or product series. For example, you could add information and links to the GeForce 400 Series page, summarizing reviewers' complaints about excessive power consumption, noise and temperatures. Also, these are not "simply numbers". The context for these numbers is provided by the articles about a particular product generation, and each of these numbers has a meaning (e.g. shader processors, TDP) that an informed user knows, and that an interested novice can find out by clicking on the wikilinks. The way I see it, the reason for making one big table with specifications, as opposed to moving this information to individual product/product series pages, is to provide one tool for Wikipedia users when they are trying to compare different products, e.g. GTX 480 vs. GTX 570. --ElTchanggo (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: The author arguing for it to be deleted at one point states '... this is a list of statistical data collected together into some nice tables' and then goes on to say '...as the "article"'s purpose is to list detailed specifications of products without any context.' and again '--instead, it's full specs'. 'Statistical data' and 'detailed specifications' are two completely different things. I would be inclined to say this article contains summary specifications, organised such that it allows much easier comparison than weblinks would allow. Also, 'detailed specifications' tend not to have a 'context'; they can be standalone.
  • The author has posited that it is 'advertising' and then asks the question 'Who would advertise a ten year old processor?' ! Well this article is NOT an advert. By your own statement - it would be pointless advertising products that are no longer being sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morfeus63 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand that the result will almost certainl be to keep this article, but I still believe that would be against policy, so I want to clarify some misconceptions above. As far as I can see, the majority of keep arguments focus on the issue of "usefulness." As far as I know, that is not nor has it ever been a criteria for keeping information on Wikipedia. In fact, WP:NOT explicitly and clearly rejects a large amount of information that is undeniably useful. For instance, I would find it extremely useful to have a full, complete list of the corporate phone numbers of all major internet service providers in the United States. Such a list could not be found elsewhere on the internet (as it would be a national list not fully and easily compiled anywhere). However, WP:NOTDIRECTORY explicitly rejects this as not being appropriate to an encyclopedia. Similarly, I would find it useful if major experts in the field of Rhetoric were able to post information about their own current research in one easy to research, organized page. That, too, would be unacceptable per WP:NOTWEBHOST. In other words, being useful is not and cannot be a sufficient criteria for keeping information on Wikipedia. If it were, one could easily argue that every available piece of data should be completely replicated here, as every piece of data (even false data) is potentially useful to someone. Finally, with regards to the advertising point; I was unaware that some of these are so old, so I guess I should have used the word "promotional" rather than advertising; note, for instance, that we reject external links and even just informative sites if we deem that the primary purpose of such a link is to promote the outside site. I argue that the nature of product specs without context is inherently promotional. So, for me, while it's clear that an overwhelming majority of people "voting" here support keeping this and associated pages, I believe policy explicitly states that the pages must go. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renominate on an individual basis Batch nominations are evil (unless all the articles in the nomination were created at the same time and are substantially similiar). A lot of these lists have directory issues and external links issues, but they need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Qwyrxian's point above about WP:NOT and our scope is well taken. ThemFromSpace 07:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only nominated two articles, an IP replied by listing a whole bunch - they are not part of the nomination.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on your talk page, I think most of us here made the mistake of thinking you nominated two dozen articles under this heading. It seems to have spoiled your AfD. :\ ThemFromSpace 09:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep This is a convenient mass of data for those out there searching technical specifications on computer hardware. Deleting this would be a tragedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.90.192 (talk)
  • Extremely Strong Keep I work with heterogeneous GPGPU/CPU systems at my university and this is the main source of information regarding architecture differences. Information is concise and always up to date. These articles can be thought as providing "architecture differences/evolution current/in time". They are very useful for people in the computer science field, especially those in the HPC - high performance computing - sector. Deleting them would be in my opinion a mistake - lupescu, UPB
  • Keep This article captures the history and evolution of a significant component of a socially relevant aspect of the computing landscape. It would be a shame if we were unable to refer to this body of knowledge in the future because we forgot to write it down, or worse, dismiss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecaveh (talk • contribs) 10:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.85.252.190 (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conviction keep all 'List of'-type articles consist of feature and property tables of the their respective subject matter. There are many similar articles in the 'List of'-category regarding nation states that consist of numerical tables of their gross domestic products, populations, military expenditures, literacy rates and so on. These microprocessor and graphical processing unit articles similarly consist of tables of technical features. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy to indicate that such tables violate policy. Pontificalibus's and Qwyrxian's assertions regarding policy violations are completely without merit.94.101.3.3 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good examples. Also consider Table 1 in the page about fructose, which lists the sugar content of different fruits; at its core, it's just a list of product specs. Even if you take it out of the context of the article, I would not consider it, in Qwyrxian's words, "inherently promotional;" it's merely informational, and as such it has a place on an encyclopedia. The same argument applies to a list of graphics card specs. My impression is that a) the lack of context does not necessarily make information promotional, and, in fact, b) the context can turn a collection of information into a promotional tool. --ElTchanggo (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion basically is dead. 88.88.126.205 (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions are required to run at least 7 complete days, except in very rare circumstances which don't apply here. Thus, sometime after 19 December an admin will review the comments and determine consensus along with considerations of the policy issues raised. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=1086061442"