Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limits.h

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 redirect to C data types. This is a close one, but the "Keep" votes are not very convincing - and one of them waffles into merge/redirect. Also, I'd like to adddress something: the OP's statement that it was just redirected to - the same as deleting it but without a afd. Specifically, that this is untrue. Redirecting has the page history present for accessibiity for merging or reverting; deleting makes content go bye-bye. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limits.h

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

keep: I think the page does not violate WP:NOTMANUAL and another user think it does and keeps making it a redirect. He do not want to AFD it, but here it goes. The article was marked with merge, but was not merged, it was just redirected to - the same as deleting it but without a afd. Christian75 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article has been merged to C data types by rewriting the material. Also, the current consensus (see Talk:C standard library#Pages for each function and WP:NOTMANUAL is to remove such pages, since it either fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NOTMANUAL. 1exec1 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Please take a look at google books - I think its quite obiously that its doesnt fails GNG? The article isnt in the best shape, but how does it fails WP:NOTMANUAL? Its a description of an header file with no examples at all. Christian75 (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show specific examples. As far as I can see, most of these books are programming manuals/teaching books which fail significant coverage criteria of WP:GNG, because if we remove the how-to part of the content, only very limited mention of limits.h is left. That notable material is already at C data types, no need for a separate page. 1exec1 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this material in C data types. I see brief mention of some of the data types and one single mention of limits.h, but zero details. The coverage of this material simply does not fit into what WP:NOTMANUAL covers. This material does not explain "how to" do something. This material gives an overview and is precisely the type of thing our readers come to Wikipedia to get a brief overview of. Our notability guidelines also state: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content [...]" so the idea of "That notable material is already at C data types, no need for a separate page." has no place at all in this discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show what specific material is not included and I'll show where to read at C data types. 1exec1 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and maybe merge and redirect to somewhere like C data types#Interface to the properties of the basic types or Standard C library#ISO C library headers. Why not just discuss this at an ordinary talk page? I don’t think anyone is actually proposing to completely delete all the contents and history. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 12:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- comment I added it here because an user keept to redirect the article, and he didnt want to AFD it. So I did it instead. Christian75 (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I didn't want to AFD it. The place for discussions like this is in the talk page, not here, since replacing the content with a redirect doesn't need attention of an administrator. 1exec1 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, bringing this to AfD was indeed the correct thing to do in this case, for the very reasons Christian75 brought it to AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, deletion of many other similar C programming-related articles (including among others, inttypes.h [1] and tgmath.h [2]) by way of redirection is highly inappropriate. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C data types. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a programming language reference. Those belong on Wikibooks. —Ruud 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in Wikibooks at b:C Programming/C Reference/limits.h. 1exec1 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing this allows us to do is to add {{Wikibooks|C Programming/C Reference/limits.h}} to the external links. Any material which explains in detail how to apply limits.h to a software program can be included on Wikibooks (such material is not present in this article). --Tothwolf (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C data types. The article's content is a manual page more appropriate for Wikibooks, not an encyclopedia entry. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the assertion that this subject fails the WP:GNG ludicrous. Any entry level C programmer would be familiar with these concepts (or should be anyway) and there are 100s of books which give this stuff coverage. Wikipedia:Five pillars states: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia.: It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (emphasis mine) I don't see that this or the many other C programming-related headers/functions (Category:C standard library headers {{C Standard Library}}, etc.) violate WP:NOTMANUAL. In fact, this is exactly the type of thing Wikipedia is very often good at covering -- complex subjects which are difficult to summarize and explain in layman's terms. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe this passes WP:GNG for the reasons you mentioned, I also believe this fits the exact and intended purpose of WP:NOTMANUAL. I.e it belongs on Wikibooks (b:C Programming/C Reference/limits.h) instead of Wikipedia. Could you argue why you think this does not fit WP:NOTMANUAL instead of merely asserting it? —Ruud 09:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone has transwikied material which they believe fits in well with other material on another wiki does not mean it should exist in only one location. Could you argue why you think this fits WP:NOTMANUAL instead of merely asserting it? I've already stated my reasons, but the main argument that it is an "instruction manual" does not make sense as this material is an overview and does not explain "how to" actually do something. It also isn't a "travel guide", a "video game guide", an "internet guide", a "FAQ", a "textbook", a "scientific journal" or "research paper", "academic language" (it uses common usage), or "case study". I've begun to witness people again and again attempt to misapply WP:NOTMANUAL to more and more encyclopedic material seemingly for the purposes of creating "busy work" so that they can look active and this is not a good trend. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the specific phrases "how-to" and "owner's manual" don't adequately describe Limits.h, it belongs in a reference manual, not in an encyclopedia. I think #1 in WP:NOTMANUAL is the one which is relevant. As I read more carefully, I see that #8 in WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies: "Wikipedia articles are not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Emphasis mine of course: knowledge includes facts but it's not just a list of all available facts. #3 in WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "Wikipedia articles should not be excessive listings of statistics." While it's written to discourage, say, publishing a list of the median income of every U.S. census-tract, its intent is relevant here. --Pnm (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There exist many different kinds of reference works. There exist reference works listing the names and parameters of all functions of the standard libraries of hundreds of different programming languages (often called "language references", "programmer's guides" or simply "manuals", although these differ from the kind of "manual" that describe how to operate your microwave). An encyclopedia does not happen to be such a kind of reference work. An encyclopedia will give you summary of what the C standard library is, historical and other background information. A language reference gives you an in-depth description of each functions that makes up the C standard library. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikibooks hosts other kinds of reference works such as language references. —Ruud 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~per WP:NOTMANUAL~~ per #1 in WP:NOTMANUAL, #8 in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and the spirit of #3 in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Added summary of my response above) The specialty encyclopedic content is easily handled in C data types, and the rest belongs in Wikibooks. If there were secondary sources which addressed this topic more broadly than how-to I could see keeping it, but that's not the case. --Pnm (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the closing administrator decides to make it a redirect (but the I would prefer a merge), he should consider the article to inttypes.h. Christian75 (talk)

The article is already merged to C data types, that is, the content is rewritten so that it fits into the layout of the target article. Please specify what exactly is in limits.h but not C data types and does not fail WP:NOTMANUAL. 1exec1 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite those arguments, the material has not been "merged to C data types" and it absolutely does not "fail WP:NOTMANUAL". --Tothwolf (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to elaborate sentence by sentence which material has been included? Or will you read and compare the articles again more carefully? Please show specific material that has not been merged before asserting that. 1exec1 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 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.