Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Find and replace Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Find_and_replace

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 Regular expression. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find and replace

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. SarahStierch (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. JIP | Talk 06:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in agreement with JIP. Find and replace is undoubtedly a useful feature in word processing, but the article falls in line with both WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTDIC. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we comment on the topic here which is certainly valid for an encyclopedia. Also I criticize the actions of the nominator SarahStierch who said in their edit summary page triage, when they obviously intended page destruction not repair. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article should be kept, I'd like to see an argument why. Claiming that it's "certainly valid" and then criticizing the nominator offers no particular evidence to support keeping the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe edit summary isn't actually my fault, it's the new Special:NewPagesFeed that made the edit summary when I nominated it. So please don't think I was trying to be shady or unintentionally sneaky. SarahStierch (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I withdraw the being sneaky suggestion. We probably have to update a gadget somewhere to give better edit summaries. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a bug, and I think it's in the process of being updated. SarahStierch (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per I, Jethrobot. The majority of the article runs afoul of WP:NOTHOWTO and were that part be taken out, all that would be left would be a stub that goes against WP:NOTDIC. I'm not finding any sources that talk about the concept of this word precessing feature in any way that isn't just a How To or definition itself. Rorshacma (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 19:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd go as far as a keep vote, but I'd be surprised if this couldn't be improved adequately. We have an article on Cut, copy, and paste, after all. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Regular expression: There's lots of interesting stuff to be said about find&replace functionality and regular expression says it all. Which is not strange, since any F&R function worth its salt is implemented by a regular expression engine. -- BenTels (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy arguments above. --Nouniquenames (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BenTels Theo polisme _:) 22:11, 22 August 2012 (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.