Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armstrong number program in c++

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. Courcelles 19:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong number program in c++[edit]

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

WP:NOTGUIDE Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: have you attempted WP:PROD? Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a speedy one might qualify. No content really, certainly not even a claim at being notable, since there are no sources nor links. It even has a different definition than the Armstrong number article has, in some details. Again, why in the world do we let new users create new articles on their first edit? A big waste of our time. /rant W Nowicki (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no attempt at establishing notability is made. ItsZippy (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not (or at least shouldn't be) a source code repository. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Sourceforge. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would first have thought merge to Narcissistic number, but the algorithm is clearly expressed there already and there's no special virtue to this expression of it in C. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, clearly not an encyclopedic article and about a subject we already cover otherwise. sonia♫ 00:56, 2 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.