Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrix.h Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matrix.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 delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix.h

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

Not a C standard header and highly doubtful it ever would beome one, anyway Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only sources are ones written by the author of the article Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable. According to the refs, it is already a standard header. Compiler vendors are not required to implement it until 2013. No WP:CRYSTAL issue as far as I can tell. --Kvng (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were all written by Susmit Sarkar who also wrote the article. There is no such matrix.h going into ANSI C which isn't due for a new standard for many years yet anyway. Dmcq (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability in reliable and independent references. --Kvng (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems extremely unlikely to be notable. As Dmcq notes, all sources and external links are web sites self-published by the author of the article. The entire notability of the article rests on the exceptional claim that the header has been accepted by ANSI, for which there is nowhere near the required quantity and quality of sources. Chrisjohnson (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The whole basis of the article's claim of notability appears to be the ANSI claim for which there is no verifiable sources either in the article or through Google search. ANSI has since the 99 version adopted the ISO standard instead of developing its own. A look at the ISO C working group website for the only meeting this year so far has no mention of it either in the pre-meeting or post-meeting mailings. KTC (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suspect there are no independent sources, from standards organisations or otherwise. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 06:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This has not been proposed to ANSI/ISO, let alone accepted. See the links posted by KTC. AnthonyWilliams 08:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Seems extremely unlikely to be notable. Not recognised by any C standards committee members. No non-circular references. Paul A Bristow (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is discussing a library written by a person sharing the same name as somebody at Cambridge University who proposed something similar for the C/C++ Standard. Wikipedia articles are not the place for people to write documentation for the software they write. If the article is about a library in the C/C++ Standard it should limit itself to discussing that library. Derek farn (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such header has been accepted by the ISO C working group, there is not going to be a new C standard on 2012 or 2013 so it would not be possible for it to be part of it. Article is inaccurate and poorly-written, appears to be self-promotion. No independent or verifiable sources. JonathanWakely (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX/WP:SOAP —Ruud 18:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no mention of such header on C committee own site or its mailings. Bronek (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a C standard header. David Keaton, Chair of PL22.11 (The "ANSI C Committee"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.201.27.164 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 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.