Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper Algorithmic Logic 15 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hyper_Algorithmic_Logic_15

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. v/r - TP 15:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Algorithmic Logic 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable. Article was previously in a quite spammy state. I removed spammy material and found legit refs for what was left, but that left nothing notable. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion. I also have not found anything particularly notable here. This probably could have been done with WP:PROD. --Kvng (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete This a model in Star Bridge Systems' line of FPGA-accelerated workstations/supercomputers. The company or this product line might be notable (e.g. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BRZ/is_7_19/ai_55867698/), but this particular model probably isn't. —Ruud 10:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find everything about this notable; hyper-computing was a major breakthrough and the HAL 15, although not as well known as HAL 9000, was the first to be actually used by notable organizations like NASA but also Hollywood studios etc. I added a CNN reference to the article so now there's multiple. --DeVerm (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note that "hyper-computing" is an ill-defined neologism (it is clearly not used in the sense of hypercomputation as the article implied before it was trimmed) and that HAL 9000 is fictitious, so I don't how they can be compared apart from the name? —Ruud 08:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct on both counts Ruud. But this article is not about hyper-computation which is about models for mathematical algorithms. My reference to HAL 9000 was only partly in jest because these real HAL computers share that same abbreviation not by accident and do indeed touch upon the field and possibilities of the famous sf computer. It is notable because of it's high power which was also the reason such high profile organizations were buying it. --DeVerm (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ruud; fails WP:SIGCOV. Only passing mentions in secondary independent sources (or even in the primary non-independent ones for that matter [1]--only 2 pages). An article about Star Bridge Systems (or is that Starbridge?) probably focusing on the series would have more of a chance of being notable on a quick Google Books & News search. See [2] [3] for a starting point.FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• An overview article on FPGA supercomputing would actually be more valuable and easier to source comprehensively than any focused on one of these elusive small scale manufacturers. There's a sorry stub on Reconfigurable Supercomputing, the super topic of that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2011 (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.