Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micropipelining

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, after extended time for discussion, without prejudice to a future article being created at this title if cohesive reliable sources describing a specific topic become available. bd2412 T 03:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micropipelining[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)

This unreferenced article appears to be about a neologism. There are numerous instances of this term on Google Books, but they're from different contexts. The concept as it's defined in this article doesn't appear to be an established term of art. This article's definition of the term, and its description of computer technology appears inaccurate. For example, Intel's NetBurst-based processors of the early- and mid-2000s, exceeded 20 pipeline stages, and later variants ended up with around 30, if I recall correctly. It appears that several valid concepts have been vaguely alluded to and then combined in a way that may be improper synthesis. In computer science and engineering, the question of limits to pipeline length and the optimal pipeline length, in respect to performance, power, and organizational effectiveness is obvious and well-known. This article doesn't appear to discuss this issue. The article also defines a micropipelining–macropipeling dichotomy. This is most certainly unverifiable, nonexistent, and erroneous. 99Electrons (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vague article with 0 sources - agree with nominator. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A case could made that an article on Micropipelines is needed, but the text here doesn't meet that need. See Ivan Sutherland's Micropipelines. For background and an overview see Entering the Micropipeline. I would rate the topic as discussed at those links as slightly notable from a computer history perspective. It appears in papers during the 1990s such as A Micropipelined ARM (1993) and it is consistently used in the sense of refering to "Sutherland's Micropipelines." It doesn't appear in the literature much after 2000. But there are a few later references to this usage.[1] I'm not sure if I could find enough references to write more than a stub to replace what is here. --mikeu ^talk 02:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came across Sutherland's micropipeline concept before I nominated this article, and a quick look at the sources about it didn't suggest that it matched the concept described in this article. Since you mentioned it, I read Sutherland's Comm. ACM paper, and it's clear that Sutherland's concept is about logic and circuit design, whereas the one described in this article is about computer organization/processor microarchitecture. A quick Google Scholar search suggests that Sutherland's concept is notable (as you said), with 1,775 citations. In my experience, Google Scholar is sometimes unreliable (for example, it can list many duplicates, but the ACM Guide of Computing Literature says it has 223 citations. Whether 223 citations satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines is a matter I'll leave for others to debate. If somebody is willing to replace the current article with Sutherland's micropipeline concept, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination if that's acceptable Wikipedia practice. 99Electrons (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I think that the idea of a micropipeline article is somewhat notable, however the current text does not meet wp guidelines. Given that the subject could be incorporated into an existing article such as Instruction pipelining I can't support a standalone page that lacks a clearly defined focus. The term is somewhat archaic. It was historically used in a very specific context but has more recently been used in a more casual and inconsistent manner as reflected in the current article. I don't see a pressing need to focus attention on this topic and it doesn't appear (few edits in 7 years) that other contributors are willing to address the shortcomings of this page. I support deletion if no one is willing to address the issues with the page. --mikeu ^talk 13:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a completely unsourced microstub that has been tagged since 2012. It fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2019 (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.