Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRK

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. The issues raised by the nomination were adequately rebutted by the subsequent discussion and improvements to the article. Merge discussions may continue on the appropriate talk pages. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRK

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

Is there a standard for the notability of op codes in various processors? This borders on how-to, is not encyclopedic, and is not of any notability. It's unreferenced, too. Mikeblas (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The standard I'm aware of is WP:NOT a manual.
  talk) 04:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I suspect this instruction was considered notable because of the bug mentioned in the last paragraph. But I don't see much evidence of coverage for this bug. Processor errata are common this days, so we can hold them to
  WP:GNG. VG ☎ 07:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to MOS Technology 6502 which looks like it has most of the stuff about brk, including the bug, but not all. btw, 13400 ghits for "brk 6502" and 6560 ghits for "brk 6502 bug". cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The section you intend to target with the merge in the 6502 article probably should be removed, as well. It's completely unreferenced negative material about a product, and POV as well ("dubious"). -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • i didnt read it that way, to me it just looks like its describing a bug in the chip and how its been exploited, seems fine to me. Mission Fleg (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that deletion is the answer. However, merger isn't the answer, either. The BRK instruction exists in the
  ISBN 0750618396 devotes two pages to software and hardware interrupts. I think that probably a summary section in MOS Technology 6502 on interrupt handling, with a breakout sub-article at Interrupts in 65xx processors will eventually be the answer, with this article being renamed to that title. In the meantime, we can keep this article and await the expansion and refactoring that is there to be had, from any editor who is willing to do the work. Uncle G (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Still, none of the above addresses the
    WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK, and verifiability ≠ notability. I don't see notability here outside the errata issue. All 6502 instructions are mentioned in the technical manuals given as reference. Should Wikipedia have an article for every instruction of every CPU? I think not. VG ☎ 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's an intriguing question - if not, why not? Incidentally I'll toss in a keep as the argument above has convinced me that nondeletion will give the better eventual result. --Kizor 08:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that we can document the interrupt handling of the 65xx family of processors without going into instructional text or tutorial territory. There are a fair number of books on the subject of these processors, that discuss their software and hardware interrupt handling, that can be used as sources. One can say that these processors have various interrupt sources and what they are, and describe how the processors respond to these various interrupts, how software and hardware interrupts are distinguishable, and the various foibles of the processors, without going into the "Let's now add this to our example program and see how it works!" territory of an instructional text or a tutorial. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current article leads with section:

which is eminently textbook stuff (technical documentation in this case). VG ☎ 14:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No it is not. Please go and familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is actually addressing. There is nothing either instructional or tutorial about that text. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per incisive comments by Uncle G. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G, while I agree we are not a technical manual or a how to manual I believe this goes a few steps beyond that. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The topics that Uncle G suggest covering end up meaning an article about interrupt handling should be written, not an article specific to the 6502 family BRK instruction. It's remarkable that there's articles for each variation of the 6502 processor; I will tag tag them for merge. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article can be developed into such an article, using normal editing tools. An administrator hitting a delete button will form no part of the process. Indeed, apart from the renaming, even editors without accounts have all of the tools to develop this article in that direction. Some of the content already exists in this one already. Deleting it sets the process back. It does not advance it. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (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.