Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C Programming Mistakes

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C Programming Mistakes

(Please also review Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Summit for a related entry)

Delete or move to Wikibooks. —BenFrantzDale 20:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Clean up. There's a lot more useful content here than in some rather-popular Wiki articles. Atlant 01:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or move to Wikibooks -- not encyclopedic, and much of the content is of dubious correctness anyway. Neilc 01:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Many are also vague like "Consider providing Error Stratergies" or "Do Not Create Buffer Overflow problems", which is about the same as saying "do not write code with bugs". —BenFrantzDale June 28, 2005 14:20 (UTC)

Delete or move to Wikibooks. Whether or not the content is objectionable, it's certainly not in the format of an encyclopedia article. The C article already extensively discusses problems with C, which covers much of this, and anything it doesn't could be merged into that section. Besides, much of the advice is not specific to C. Be gentle on the contributor though — they're obviously new and probably didn't realise this material was inappropriate. I'd suggest merge and redirect, but the title is nothing someone could conceivably type in a search box. Deco 29 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Also note that the bottom portion of this article (the part that looks good) is copied directly from C programming language without credit. This is not only dishonest but kind of silly, since the writer evidently didn't actually use any of these sources. Deco 21:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bad article, already covered by problems with C Friday 2 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a general tutorial service. — 131.230.133.185 6 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOT a FAQ or a how-to. -Splash 01:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More appropriate for Wikibooks. Forbsey 01:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up. --Briangotts 02:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Jeremy Harmon 06:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic: cannot be made NPOV. Not good enough to transwiki to Wikibooks. What garbage. "Do: Write Robust, Simpler, Efficient, Reusable and Modular Codes." Yeah, right. Which are the languages in which one would be advised to write fragile, complex, inefficient, unadaptable, and monolithic codes? What if efficiency cannot be obtained except at the cost of greater complexity? Arrggh, don't get me started. Hey, how come it doesn't say DO: use three spaces per tab? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up, potentially valuable article and a decent start jamesgibbon 15:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How-tos are not encyclopedic. I will trust more knowledgeable types that the advice is not that essential and thus not worth transwikying. Dcarrano 15:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
'Merge into C programming language. --Vizcarra 23:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Worthwhile information, but not mistakes, just a(n incomplete) list of style guidelines. Peter Grey 15:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject will never yield a good article. Every programmer has their own personal list of "do" and "don't" rules. This article is just a POV magnet for every programmer with the egotism to think their way is the only way. If programming rules worked, computers wouldn't need programmers. --A D Monroe III 20:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Valuable stuff, if the focus is shifted from "C programming mistakes" to "Common C programming mistakes". On which topic I am, er, very knowledgeable. Or perhaps even "Notable C programming mistakes" (I can think of a few examples of code mistakes that led to serious consequences).Robinh 22:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the article it actually has very little to do with C programming mistakes, per se, unlike say C programming language#Problems. I would interpret this vote as "rewrite". Deco 01:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's potential here, I'm just not sure where. Merge with C, maybe, as an "informal coding style standard" sort of dealie? There's some good advice in the article (and some I'd disagree with, but not count as bad, neccessarily). No vote. --Jack (Cuervo) 03:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for reasons which have been well-stated above), and don't bother moving to Wikibooks, either. (In fact the currently-empty Wikibooks stub entry probably eeds deleting too.) Steve Summit 23:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert/vanity: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Summit - Tεx τ urε 19:45, 19 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.