mic_none

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/C syntax Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/C_syntax

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 22:44, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

C syntax

[edit]

With humble apology to the many excellent contributors to this article, I would like to strongly suggest that the content all be moved to the Wikibook on C. This request may generate some controversy, and I can't seem to find a suitable clause in the deletion policy, but I think it's the only suitable solution for both projects.

What makes this article more appropriate for Wikibooks?

  1. It's extremely detailed — well beyond the level someone interested in "general knowledge" might expect or desire.
  2. It doesn't stand on its own. It has the feel of a section in a much larger work describing libraries, semantics, common practices, history, and other details. If we embedded all this into the encyclopedia, we would have a book.
  3. The C Wikibook needs a good section on syntax like this one (compare the minimal syntax chapter), and forking is undesirable.

One objection I expect is: why not copy the content, but leave this article in place, cutting it down to more of a summary? I think this is fine, but I think such a summary would become so short that it might as well be merged back into the section in C programming language whence this article originally emerged. Deco 10:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. A discussion about this was started on the article's talk page, some time ago. That's where this should be discussed. When a conclusion is reached, then think about VfD if still appropriate. Andrewa 12:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry if I did this too quickly. I really should've brought it up on the talk page first. Deco 22:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because something plausibly could be transwikid doesn't mean it should be - David Gerard 14:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks like a well written and useful article. Feel free to plunder it for Wikibooks, that's what the GFDL is for. --14:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I understand where you're coming from, and if the article was 20KB larger, I'd agree with you. As it is it's not unreasonably long, and it's very informative. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not unreasonably long, informative. Add content to Wikibooks as well. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:10, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep - keep and transwiki. Samaritan 21:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs cleanup. Megan1967 02:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 05:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I for one search Wikipedia long before I think to check Wikibooks.
  • Keep. I feel silly voting keep on something I submitted, but at the very least this was premature of me. Apologies again. Deco 02:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.