mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stdlib.h Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stdlib.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 standard library. Relevant policy is WP:CFORK. We shouldn't carry articles that cover the same subject under different titles so combining (or in cases where its already covered redirecting) content is a standard outcome and doesn't require an AFD. Arguably if there needed to be a discussion this should have been at RFD but we seem to have attracted enough knowledable input here to reach a consensus Spartaz Humbug! 04:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stdlib.h

[edit]
Stdlib.h (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been replaced with a redirect for a while until some editor came saying that it must necessarily go through the AFD process. So here is the request. The rationale to delete this article is that almost all its content is duplicated across several other articles, namely C dynamic memory allocation (malloc, free, calloc, realloc), C miscellaneous operations (qsort, bsearch, ato*, strto*, rand, srand), C program control operations (system, getenv, abort, exit, atexit), C mathematical operations (abs, labs, div, ldiv), stddef.h (NULL, size_t). Itoa as a nonstandard function is currently not included anywhere. The splitting of the article was the result of recent initiative to reorganize the articles about C standard library (you may see the discussion which was the starting point). Due to the fact that the organization is almost complete and this page clearly does not fit into the new structure by duplicating the content, I suggest this article to be replaced speedy replaced with a redirect to C standard library. 1exec1 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 1exec1 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit) Since C miscellaneous operations is up for deletion, its content has been merged to C string and C mathematical functions. 1exec1 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thats not correct - its not a single editor - there has been a lot of disagreement. Take a look at the talk pages Talk:C_standard_library#Pages_for_each_function_and_WP:NOTMANUAL, and the talk page of the nominater, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limits.h - the latter is a very insignificant header file compared to this one. The reason I recreated this article, thats because it was a redirect to C program control operations which is misleding if you want to know what stdlib.h is. If the new suggestion to redirect it to C standard library, the only infomation you get is: "For performing a variety of operations, including conversion, pseudo-random numbers, memory allocation, process control, environment, signalling, searching, and sorting.". The whole problem is, the articles has not been merged and therefore I disagree with your speedy redirect. And I have AFDed C miscellaneous operations - I think the way the headers has been split up is WP:OR and selfmade titles. E.g. I have not found a citation which states thats C mathematical operations is the functions in that article, but I have found a lot about plus and minus etc. I thought it was a good idea to merge a lot of the function which was the title of the discussion Talk:C_standard_library#Pages_for_each_function_and_WP:NOTMANUAL" but too late I (and probably) serveral other people recognized that it was about a new structure for the article, and the article was not merged as suggested) but just redirects to oneliners e.g. "strncmp - compares specific number of bytes in two strings" (yes (strncmp) was a poor article before, but now the redirect is useless - unless you want to leave wikipedia (the "merger" has included a lot of external links instead of mergeing the articles). Btw. the article Itoa the nominator says he couldnt fine a place to redirect, whats the solution to that - making it a redirect to C miscellaneous operations (without mergeing or mention the name of the redirect on the target). Christian75 (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request. Before asserting that the article has not been merged, please show any material at stdlib.h that can not be found in the abovementioned articles. As of itoa, the article about it went in length and even tried to find every appearance of that function anywhere (section other appearances), so I think it definitely fails WP:GNG. I don't see how your point has any value with regard to this discussion until you address this request. 1exec1 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided sources that back all article names except C miscellaneous operations which will probably be deleted. WP:OR no longer applies. 1exec1 (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some things just plain have actual names. This is one of them. This is malloc all over again. The thing is called stdlib.h. Unless there's an argument (and I haven't heard it) that it's not notable, it certainly doesn't need someone's idea of a much better name. Msnicki (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request Could you name any sources that would allow us to write an encyclopedic article on this subject, i.e. one that describes the history of stdlib.h and the impact it has had on computer programming or society as opposed to a transcription of the C language specification? I would believe those exists for the topics "C standard library" and "printf", but I'm doubtful they exists for stdlib.h. —Ruud 01:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to where in the WP:GNG it requires that? stdlib.h did not appear in K&R 1st ed but does appears in the second edition on pg 142 (in a discussion of malloc) and in a section devoted to it, "B5. Utility function: <stdlib.h>", pp 251–253. That's a primary source, but I'll bet we can find lots of secondaries if you really need them. Msnicki (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT seems to be the relevant policy here. Could you name some concrete titles of secondary sources covering stdlib.h? My book on C++ only contains a one sentence description, followed buy a list of function prototypes with one-sentence descriptions. That can be covered in C standard library, but isn't enough warrant its own article. An encyclopedia is supposed to summarize knowledge from different sources, but here I don't see how we would just end up duplicating http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf . —Ruud 11:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here is another book that gives stdlib.h its own section. Satisfied? Msnicki (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only view a snippet from that book, so I'm still not convinced that there is enough material to write a stand-alone article on stdlib.h, instead of a section in C standard library or other overview article. —Ruud 16:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That book only contains only a very short mention of stdlib.h itself and then goes about the contained functions, so no, there is not enough material for a separate article. 1exec1 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD doesn't work the way you think. What the WP:GNG asks is that we establish that non-trivial coverage in reliable sources WP:RS exists. Objections that you would have to pay to read them WP:PAYWALL or that you don't think there's enough material WP:TOOLITTLE are both arguments to avoid. Yes, the intent is to ensure that an encyclopedic article can be written but notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. There is certainly room to add encyclopedic content, e.g., tracing the development or documentary history of this particular named and well-known collection of routines. Msnicki (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find your response to be a bit convoluted, I'll try to address the points you are raising:
  1. I was not complaining about the paywall in the sense you describe here. The fragmentary view of the source you pointed me too gave the strong impression that it only gave a one-sentence description of stdlib.h. If you have access to the source and can confirm that it gives more extensive coverage, then please say so, as it will likely cause me to revise my opinion.
  2. WP:TOOLITTLE mostly concerns the current state of the article, not its potential. Furthermore, no-one here seems interested in deleting coverage of stdlib.h from Wikipedia, but want to improve the quality of its coverage by integrating it in a more extensive article.
  3. Development and documentary history would be great additions, but we're not aware of any sources covering these subjects. Doing our own historical research would probably cross the line into original research (as you indicated yourself at Talk:C dynamic memory allocation#Proposal to split).
—Ruud 18:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:OR to go look for archival sources and to use them to document history, establishing who did what, when and according to published statements, why. You can see where I've added some of this to the C shell, Bash (Unix shell), GNU Compiler Collection articles. That's definitely not WP:HOWTO and it's not original research. Original research isn't your own personal effort to go find sources to document and support individual statements in an article. That's what you're supposed to do and you're supposed to do that all the time. Original research is the WP:SYNTHESIS of what individual sources report into something new, e.g., arguing that all these sources are really talking about an umbrella topic of a different name without actually establishing that's true or even that the new term means the same thing to everyone. Msnicki (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're dealing with primary as opposed to secondary sources here, so the situation is definitely not as clear cut as you're trying to make it sound here. More importantly, could you address or rebut the 1st and 2nd point? —Ruud 20:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We only need secondary sources to establish notability. They're just plain out there. To deny that to a deletionist like me (and go look at my history to verify that) is not going to work. Once you're past the notability hurdle, you're allowed to use primary sources to establish other facts. From WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." That's pretty restrictive, but it's also pretty useful. For example, if you accept that bash is notable, it's okay to use Google's snapshot of Brian Fox's announcement to establish that he released his version 0.99 beta on Jun 7, 1989. For that purpose, that source is reliable (at least, it is until someone challenges it), even if it is primary. Msnicki (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that particular case that would be an uncontroversial use of such sources. However you're still managing to keep this discussion extremely hypothetical. Do you have any concrete suggestions for sources that pertain only to stdlib.h - as opposed to the whole C standard library - and can be used to expand the article beyond a size that would be manageable as a simple section of C standard library? Also, you still did not address or rebut my 1st and 2nd points above. —Ruud 20:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reminding you of my earlier request, if you can find any part of the guidelines that says you're entitled to any that in an AfD to establish notability, I will do whatever it says. Msnicki (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:GNG:

Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.

The purpose of this AfD, at the request of Christian75, is to be to reach a consensus on whether stdlib.h should be a stand-alone article or covered as a section in another article. —Ruud 21:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe that all content (except the section about itoa which fails WP:GNG) is already at the following articles: C dynamic memory allocation (malloc, free, calloc, realloc), C string (ato*, strto*), C program control operations (system, getenv, abort, exit, atexit), C mathematical functions (abs, labs, div, ldiv, rand, srand), stddef.h (NULL, size_t). So the bulk of what you suggest is already done. 1exec1 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep where it is. Previous discussions have established that stdlib.h, with its included functions, is notable in its own right. Redirecting to C standard library is not optimal because C standard library comprises much more than this header file. The fact that most of this article's content is duplicated in other articles is not a rationale for deletion, because the combination of content on this page remains unique and serves as an outline for the C implementations of the algorithms and functionalities included in this header. Deryck C. 23:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that stdlib.h is notable, there is no intent to delete the coverage of stdlib.h. However I think the fact that this particular combination of functions is unique establishes only a very weak argument. since most of WP:RS organize their content differently. Several examples:
  1. Tony Crawford, Peter Prinz -- C in a Nutshell (ISBN 0-596-00697-7) : §15 introduces the headers, each with a very concise list of what functionality (not functions) is contained; §16 talks about each group of functions individually. Various bits from stdlib.h are assigned to Mathematical functions, Multibyte characters, Converting Between Numbers and Strings, Searching and Sorting, Dynamic Memory Management, Process control.
  2. Peter Prinz; Ulla Kirch-Prinz -- C pocket reference (ISBN 978-0-596-00436-1): No analysis of headers at all (they are listed though in §1.15). The content of stdlib.h is assigned to §1.18. Mathematical Functions, §1.20. String handling, §1.21. Searching and Sorting, §1.23. Dynamic Memory Management.
  3. Brian Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie -- The C programming language (2nd edition, ISBN 0-13-110362-8): No analysis of headers, except in Appendix B Standard Library. The content of stdlib.h is assigned to §2.7 Type Conversions, §7.8.4 Command Execution, §7.8.5 Storage Management, §7.8.7 Random Number generation.
  4. Herbert Schildt -- C/C++ Programmer's Reference (3rd edition, ISBN 0-07-222722-2): No analysis of headers at all. The content of stdlib.h is assigned to §11. The Dynamic Allocation Functions and §12. Miscellaneous Functions
  5. The C++ standard: No analysis of headers at all. The content of stdlib.h is assigned to §18.5. Start and termination, §18.10. Other runtime support, §20.6 Memory, §21.7 Null terminated sequence utilities, §25.5 C library algorithms, §26.8 C [numerics] library.
Even the C standard names the section about stdlib.h not stdlib.h, but General utilities <stdlib.h>, thus we should at least rename the article, as overwhelming majority of other sources don't use stdlib.h in section names, neither actually talk a lot about stdlib.h. Note, that although we can find a book about anything using search, I did not use search to find sources, thus my sampling should be quite unbiased as opposed to searching for stdlib.h and getting many more books about it. Hence this should be quite good argument why stdlib.h shouldn't have its own article. I agree that redirecting to C standard library probably isn't the best we can do though. As an alternative I propose to create new article C standard library headers and to concisely discuss all headers there, probably without listing all functions/macros, but stating what kind of functionality these headers contain. 1exec1 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to C standard library#ISO_C_library_headers. The text in this article is high quality, different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limits.h, which was not. That makes it more important to preserve the content somewhere, but the same argument applies. I'll rehash what I said there. #1 in WP:NOTMANUAL applies. While the specific phrases "how-to" and "owner's manual" don't adequately describe Stdlib.h, it belongs in a reference manual, not in an encyclopedia. #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 litany of all available facts. --Pnm (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is only a prerequisite for an article. As some editors already pointed out, we can't write an encyclopedic article about stdlib.h. The argument is that is that there exists only very little amount of information about stdlib.h file itself, and the information about contained functions should be described in other articles, because they are better known as mathematical functions in C and similar. This point is quite important, since per WP:TITLE, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Here WP:RS almost unanimously use mathematical functions and similar names, not stdlib.h, to refer to these functions. There might be concern that stdlib.h gets plenty hits on google for example, I think that does not matter here, because they refer to stdlib.h as a file, and as I've said, there's little information about stdlib.h as a file. It can be summarized as " stdlib.h is a header file in C standard library, it contains the following functions: [1] [2] [3] ...". As the functions ([1][2][3] part) should be described in other articles per the above argumentation, the remaining part does not deserve a separate article for sure. Also, a link does not require the target article to exist, it's the other way - per WP:RED an existing article is a prerequisite for a link, unless its notability is obvious. Finally, WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. 1exec1 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing forces that section to be a table. A couple encyclopedic sentences about important header files could easily go in subsections, before a table listing the remaining headers. --Pnm (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to all of these sources and can confirm that neither of them have description of stdlib.h file longer than two sentences. Two of them (K&R and Through C to C++:...) describe stdlib.h only in appendixes. Note, that the main concern is not notability, since there's no intent to reduce of coverage of stdlib.h, but the form of presentation, WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY 1exec1 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. There may only be a couple introductory sentences introducing the topic, but that's followed by several pages of detail on each of the routines with lots of sentences in K&R and Holmes and other works. The header is notable; deal with it. Msnicki (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just added two more sources. Msnicki (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm not silly. That isn't related to this discussion.
  2. WP:GNG #1 "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". No sources have longer description of stdlib.h than two sentences. Details about routines gives notability to those routines, not stdlib.h.
  3. Two of the sources (K&R and Holmes) describe stdlib.h only in appendixes. This gives them only questionable importance. google groups reference is not WP:RS, since the poster is neither reliable nor notable. Also, stdlib.h is only mentioned, but not analyzed there. C standard draft is WP:PRIMARY and does not give more information about stdlib.h than that is a file that defines some functions. K&R talks about the same functions at §2.7 Type Conversions, §7.8.4 Command Execution, §7.8.5 Storage Management, §7.8.7 Random Number generation in the main text, not appendix.
  4. WP:TITLE "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Even with the added sources, more WP:RS (my comment above) support mathematical functions and similar titles, than stdlib.h.
  5. The header is notable; deal with it. : WP:GNG #5 "... significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion ..."
  6. WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY as pointed out above in a Pnm's comment is still a problem. You are yet to address that.
1exec1 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation problems notwithstanding, I like the kind of content Msnicki added in this edit. If there were more facts like that I could see keeping a stub. But the remaining, reference manual-like content still doesn't belong. --Pnm (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that in general. However, I don't think that it's possible to find such facts, as I am yet to see a reliable source saying more that stdlib.h is a file and contains specific functions. This particular addition is not specific to stdlib.h and is already covered at C standard library#History. It's also WP:OR since the sources don't directly support it - standardisation might as well have been started year earlier, who knows, sources don't say that, especially as C standard library#History gives different timings. So I think a reasonable approach would be to cover stdlib.h in a section at C standard library until there's enough information so it can be split back here. I don't think that leaving stdlib.h serves a purpose, since the potential of expansion of the article has not been demonstrated (no RS covering stdlib.h in more than two sentences). 1exec1 (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The specialists have no consensus on their discussion page listed above for how to handle it in general. As someone who isn't one, I think the common sense position is a merge; the material will be more suitable for use in one place, and in the sum its important enough for an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we merge the headers to the standard library, where should we merge information about the functions - as I see it - if a headers isnt notable to have its own article - article like printf and malloc should not have one either and should be merge to standard library too. Christian75 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think printf format string and C dynamic memory allocation are related to this case. They both are extensive encyclopedic articles as compared to this one, where we can't find sources with more than two sentences of description. 1exec1 (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I can't see how such a little problem generated such a long discussion. Isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia? It shouldn't contain a description of every bit on the planet. Here there is a dictionary-like description of some obscure file with a list of functions. It's the functions that are important! And there are some well-written articles about them already, such as C dynamic memory allocation or C string. Burn this article, it only wastes time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.69.225.34 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 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.