Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C8051

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 redirect to Intel 8051. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C8051 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This particular microcontroller is not independently notable, and I cannot find any independent coverage of it. Article is written like a brochure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (no merge) to Intel 8051. No evidence of independent notability but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an excellent idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per David Eppstein. Pavlor (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Intel 8051. Article is a product brochure mess and full of promotional links. It probably could be independently notable (e.g. [1][2][3]), however splitting off from the compatible 8051 should be done with content that isn't like a product brochure. --Mvqr (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2022 (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.