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 no consensus. It may be better to nominate specific instruction articles separately. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FCMOV[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An article on a single instruction in some version(s) of the Intel/AMD x86 architecture, consisting of very little more than specifications copied from a manual. From what I gather there is a lot of change around these from one generation to the next. Articles on single instructions from every notable computer would constitute a huge, make-work, cluttery project with dozens of disambiguation pages (how many computers had a NOP instruction?). The level of detail is excessive, and in practice the x86 devices are the only ones with these articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the same basis:

Note that I have excluded pages on the LOADALL and RdRand instructions because these have information beyond simple specifications. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the number of articles on these instructions is not a problem as Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. - Scarpy (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this appears to be part of a manual, was this a significant development in x86 architecture? could it be redirected to x86 with a few extra words there (that also looks manualist/instructionalist) (although that article is 11th words so probably needs pruning/splitting)? ditto with the others. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of them to x86 instruction listingsKeep JMP, TEST, INT, HLT, Merge the rest to x86 instruction listings. if there's content worth saving. Absolutely non-notable by themselves. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC); changed Enterprisey (talk!) 05:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NOTPAPER. If there were an infinite number of instructions, I'd see the logic, but as there is a finite number there's no practical reason not to have an article for each. In the alternative, there should be notability guidelines to help explain when an instruction is or isn't notable enough for its own article. JMP, TEST and INT are more than notable enough, HLT and the various MOVxxx instructions less so. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Locke Cole, can you give some reliable sources that indicate the notability of JMP, TEST, and INT? Enterprisey (talk!) 05:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Enterprisey, there are dozens of technical references that include these instructions, as well as many books on programming for the x86 processors that include discussions on them as well. In the case of INT, I know there was a very popular list of interrupts maintained by Ralf Brown. As an aside: assembly language was one of the original methods of programming computers. Just like using a flint and stone was the primary method of creating fire for a time, we shouldn't let this be lost to history simply because it's fallen out of fashion for computer programmers today. I see potential for growth going forward, and believe this part of computing history to be important enough to keep. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Some of the commands should get their own articles, although I still think others should just get sections in a bigger article (e.g. all but HLT, INT, and JMP). I'll update my recommendation. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 28 August 2018 (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.