Your Article

The reason for deletion is explained in the attached conversation. If you do not understand it leave a message on my talk page and I will be glad to explain it to you. Thank You Mihir Khatwani

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

The entire premise of this article is that the term "IEEE machine" describes any computer which implements IEEE floating point artithmetic. It does this in three unreferenced sentences, then adds some padding about what floating point artithmetic is. This does not justify a separate article, and if this was a recognised term then redirect to IEEE 754-2008 would be appropriate. However,I can find no evidence that the term is used at all; still less that it specifically refers to this particular IEEE standard - all occurrences of the phrase online appear to be mirrors of wikipedia, or part of something else (eg "IEEE machine learning"). At best this is a neologism; more likely it is madeup. Therefore, even a redirect is inappropriate and the article should be deleted. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I completely agree with the nom. I'm convinced this term is WP:MADEUP. I've certainly never heard it, but more important, neither has Google: The term doesn't appear anywhere in the literature (Google books or scholar). Common usage is IEEE floating point, which redirects to IEEE 754-2008. Msnicki (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Ruud 17:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Not made up necessarily, but more precisely slang or jargon. Perhaps a valid subtopic might be something like a list of early machines that used the 754 standard (with dates and citations), and issues like the bug. But now it is so common to not be notable, and would make more sense to be part of another article anyway. For that matter, we seem to have a plethora of badly-cited articles already on this subject. As noted, IEEE floating point (which is what I would agree is the common name) redirects to IEEE 754-2008, while IEEE 754 revision describes the process that led to the 2008 edition, and IEEE 754-1985 that desribes the original edition. I would favor merging them all into the common named article, perhaps starting by appending -1985 the revision, and -2008 and moving the result. My reasoning is that even with, say, very notable books, we do not have separate articles on each edition. I have been working on merging some of the duplicate standards articles but do not have the cycles to do it now. Since we already have articles on the Intel 8087 and the Pentium FDIV bug no information would be lost if this is just deleted and the merge discussed as a separate issue. There might be enough material to support two articles, but three or four seems redundant. It does seem this has been proposed but trying to find a discussion. W Nowicki (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add it seems to be assigned as homework for three students in Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Computer Organization and Advanced Microprocessing even though content is from 2005. W Nowicki (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.

On the articles IEEE 754-2008, IEEE 754 revision, and IEEE 754-1985 -- it might make sense to merge the first and third, but a lot of new material would need to be added to get the 2008 additions covered as well as the 'old' basics from 1985. This would make it very big and long -- perhaps a different structure altogether is needed: the 2008 article as top-level, pointing to "IEEE 754 binary formats" and "IEEE 754 decimal formats" which detail the bits and bytes.

I think the revision article is definitely best kept separate as it refers to the history and process rather than the content. Important stuff, but not what most readers will be looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfc (talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 September 2011

Above comment was by User:Mfc who was editor of the actual standard. As for the other three related articles, yes, the precedent would be something like IEEE 802.16 which describes the standardization effort, and WiMAX which describes the products. I would imagine one IEEE floating point article that discusses the formats, and one IEEE 754 that discusses the standards efforts, for example. Anyway, getting off the subject of the delete discussion. W Nowicki (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Even though it is a jargon term, some Wikipedia users may be looking for a definition or explanation; a redirect would be friendly. But definitely no need for a separate article. Freederick (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2011 (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.