Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse Hyper-Threading

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. No Guru 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Hyper-Threading

Technology is fictional[1] Yamla 02:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --Yamla 02:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 03:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete confirmed hoax [2].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xrblsnggt (talk • contribs) .
Strong Delete It's a fabrication from The Inquirer, what else can be said. [3] Dionyseus 04:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Michael 06:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! you can rewrite the article because it is not a feature in Rev. F/G K8, but it is a possible feature in K10, although it is mere speculation for K10, but we cannot delete this article for it doesn't exist in K8 and K8L chips and exclude the possibility of being implemented in the future, as there is a report of REVERSE HYPER-THREADING for K10 chips. If anyone doesn't remember that, I recommend them to search in Google[4] before stubbornly(sp?) delete this article. Thank you. --202.71.240.18 07:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's close to 6 million ghits for "unicorns", 15 million for "fairies", 67 million for "aliens"... It's a viral meme for gullible computer amateurs. btw: thanks for the link to google. I never would have found it. --Xrblsnggt 11:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not a possible feature. Aside from Inq's admission that it was a hoax, the very concept would require a massive redesign of the CPU's architecture. It's firmly in the realm of "utterly impossible" with today's (or even tomorrow's) technology. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a Hoax, right?. Read this first: [5] which is originated: 10 April 2006, and this was the first website suggested AMD was "studying" for a term called "Anti-HT" for AMD K10, and was reported by the Inquirer for Reverse HT in AM2 chips at June 23 2006, while the inquirer admitted that as a hoax for AM2 chips, but not for AMD K10 chips. As said by AMD, K10 is complete core redesign and major core revision. it's possible for reverse HT to be implemented as what RandyWang said above. And finally, I want you to search GOOGLE, not that I do the search for you! Do type in the KEYWORD(s) (i.e. "AMD K10" "anti-HT") and find it yourself!! For the stupid people who doesn't know how to do a search in google, [6] find the title: "X86-secret.com : Highly Technical Hardware Reviews - [ Translate this page ]", click on Translate this page, and see the report. Do not ask me how to search in Google, as most of you (except idiots of the Internet) can do it without anyone's help. Anyone who cannot do a search in Google by entering KEYWORDS themselves do not have the right to be an Wikipedian, as they are totally hopeless! --202.71.240.18 07:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does the Google search turn up the Inquirer's retraction of their article about RHT? Are any of the discussions that Google finds ultimately based on anything other than the Inquirer article? Guy Harris 07:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You want me to find it for you? fine: [7] The first entry, thank you! --202.71.240.18 07:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unless all mentions such as Xbitlabs also prove to be based soley on the unreliable Inquirer. Ace of Risk 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 17:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bschott 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Nick Y. 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zos 19:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to "Reverse Hyper-Threading Hoax". Myth dispelling, IMHO, is an important and useful function of an enciclopedia -- Sergio Ballestrero 08:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-existant hoax, remove per nom. H e nrik 08:19, 17 July 2006 (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.