Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I686

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, disregarding numerical consensus. Yes, the topic has a "notable" feel to it, but that is not the problem. The problem is that it is not clear from either the article or this discussion that a verifiable article can be written about this topic. As WillOakland points out, the article has no sources and that means we can't be sure that the term "i686" actually means what the article says it means. Various Google searches are also unhelpful in finding a reliable source for the meaning of this term, so I'll have to delete it until someone writes an article that has references to reliable sources.  Sandstein  19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] i686

I686 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Basically a list that can include every Intel processor since the Pentium Pro, and every AMD processor since the Athlon. As new processors are released, this list will continue to grow without stopping. Basically every processor today supports i686 instructions. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I see where you're going with this, and ordinarily I reject Google as a measurement of most anything, but Results 1 - 10 of about 8,510,000 for i686. (0.08 seconds) suggests that we should be able to WP:HEY and improve this one. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, this article is simply way too broad. There is already an Intel P6 article, which is more specific, referring the the family of processors to first use i686 instructions. While i786 is sometimes used for the NetBurst processors (i.e. Pentium 4), it is not commonly recognized, and most of the time it is still treated as i686. The same is true for the Intel Core Microarchitecture. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep If "every processor today supports" this instruction set, then it's a notable instruction set. Go ahead and edit out the list of processors, but keep (and expand) the intro paragraph---for example, Andros, everything you just said (first used in P6, 786 treated as 686, etc.) is non-obvious, encyclopedic info that belongs in the article. Bm gub (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So, why don't we have articles on i386, i486, and i586? i386 instructions are supported by all x86 processors starting with the Intel 80386. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • An argument of WP:OTHERSTUFF (doesn't) exist, surely? Paulbrock (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, there are articles for each of those things---each one is an appropriate redirect. If i686 really is a synonym for P6, then i686 should redirect there. But it really is a common term, one I've encountered dozens of times (in compiler flags, etc.), and shouldn't be deleted outright. Bm gub (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect, it was a slang term for the P6 and trying to associate it with anything else is original research. WillOakland (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete Criteria is sketchy at best. Title is poor and doesnt explain much. It claims to be an 'unofficial name' and has no sources. --neonwhite user page talk 23:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep - It's a common term, so the article is useful. If it's too broad, make it a disambig page - which it almost is now, anyway. --Chriswaterguy talk 05:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or merge - this is a notable name for a CPU instruction set/architecture. Note that things like i386, i486, etc. have different instruction sets and programs compiled for an later archs may not run on earlier ones. This article certainly could be improved and merging into Intel P6 might be the way to go, but I think it is an ok stub right now. Wrs1864 (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - very well known term. A bad article doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted. -Halo (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep in some form, even if just as a redirect, as this is a very common term, and a plausible link and search target. No need to push the delete button on this one. I'm not going to comment on whether it should be a redirect or a list/article, but AfD is not needed for that discussion. --Itub (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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.