Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEC µPD7220

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEC µPD7220

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

I could only find unreliable sources for this computer hardware. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

161 hits: Northcon, Mini/Micro Southwest, The International Conference on Computers and Applications, etc. and more 110 hits -- Polluks ★ 08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits don't prove anything. SL93 (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 09:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, to me hits prove that one should take a little time to look more closely, if nothing else.... I think this has some historical value, so would prefer to keep it around while the article is improved (like clarifying it is historical!). Issues are that it was called by several different names (not sure about that Greek letter?), and of course not many sources from the 1980s are online. Yes, there were computers back then, and Wikipedia could use some articles about that time, instead of being focused on 2008 and beyond. Minor note: should be in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing since it is not software (some over there should really be here too for that matter). W Nowicki (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be historical, but there is no reason why it can't be merged somewhere else and then redirected if there is barely any information available. SL93 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the February 1983 issue of Byte, starting on page 90, there is an interview with the designers of the Apple Lisa. Two of the questions that were asked were specifically about why this IC was not used in the Lisa. Starting on page 33 there's another article about the Lisa which says "an interesting aspect of the Lisa is that it abandons hardware graphics chips like the NEC 7220 for system software that requires the 68000 microprocessor to generate and maintain the video image." As the quote shows, the chip seems to have been referred to informally as the "NEC 7220". —rybec 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Info World reference in the article is significant coverage in a reliable source, and along with the other refs and the Byte mention above, notability is established for this chip. Dialectric (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On pages 8 to 9 of the April 1983 issue of DTACK Grounded, there's an article called "An Introduction to the 7220" about this device. —rybec 22:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Polluks:Polluks searched for upd7220 and upd82720 (with "µ" replaced by "u" as is sometimes done); those may not be the most common terms for these chips. —rybec 23:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I would guess that "NEC 7220" might be the most popular name for online sources, but mostly because computers of that time generally did not (easily) use Greek letters. Doing a Google Book search for example finds many mentions with the different variations, but mostly snippets since the 1980s are still in copyright but before web sites. The original IEEE paper just calls it the ""A Single-chip Graphic Display Controller" since it had not been given a product number yet. There are also some sources in Japanese, but I do not read that. Some are on-line under the site of one of the designers, Tetsuji Oguchi, which also mentions some other awards the design won. See http://www.oguchi-rd.com/ The "µ" does appear on the official NEC documentation, so might as well keep the article title as it is: the official name. I have been working on the article adding the sources mentioned, trying to put it in perspective, and hope the naysayers can take another look. I am not a hardware designer, but the Byte article seems noted itself by other sources, due to the historical nature of the Apple Lisa, and all three of the people interviewed in it are notable with Wikipedia articles of their own. W Nowicki (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by InfoWorld and Byte references. These are in the article. Please have a look at an articles's references WP:BEFORE nominating. There are probably many more but due to the age of the topic we won't find them online. ~KvnG 05:41, 5 August 2013 (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.