Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asynchronous semaphore Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asynchronous_semaphore

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asynchronous semaphore

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

Original research. Notability doubtful. No references since 2011. A search turned up no authoritative references. PROD removed without improvement. Rhadow (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing in Google news, only a few hundred Google results, which of course doesn't preclude notability, but all of the sources are either affiliated or unreliable (WordPress, for example). I agree with the original research assertion by the nominator because many of its claims aren't even verified in self-published sources. Little indication of passing general notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like this tries to highlight a differecen between a "semaphore" and an "asynchronous semaphore". I don't think any such difference exists. Probably want to leave a redirect to Semaphore (programming). -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and failing WP:GNG. I do not believe even a redirect is necessary, doubtful anyone would ever type that in a search box considering the tiny number of Google hits. Ifnord (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2017 (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.