Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number validation in VB 6
- Is functions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not how-to content. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a software instruction manual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete no notability, WP is not a how-to guide. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 17:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, with the hope that someone finds a use for it elsewhere. Content is OK, but it fails WP:HOWTO for hosting here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment content has been substantially improved from what I saw but it still is essential a HOWTO and just a rehash of information already available from MSDN. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)- Don't bend the policy out of shape to prevent changing an AFD rationale. That's putting the cart entirely before the horse. One thing that how tos have, that isn't in the article before us, is instructional content telling someone step-by-step how to do something. Policy is quite clear that what it is talking about is instructional and tutorial material. This article here is an actual programmers' how to, for reference and contrast with the encyclopaedia article before us, which contains not a single step-by-step instruction and no tutorials of any form (unlike this which was mostly instructional), and is purely reference material sourced, by and large, from reference books, some of which even say "reference" in their titles. Uncle G (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The applicable policies are probably WP:N and WP:NOTHOWTO point 4. On the face of it, the subject matter has the multiple non-trivial references satisfying notability. The article presents as information rather than as "textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples" and so good argument can be made that it satisfies the NOTHOWTO advice. And though I can kinda see reasons for not wanting to dissect in minute detail on wikipedia every software platform, I'm persuaded by NOTHOWTO's "Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article", the quality of the subject article, and the fact that it discusses the function in the context of a range of platforms. I suspect, however, that other non-microsoft platforms have is functions and thus that we're seeing only a subset of the information one might expect to inhabit the is function namespace. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC) & again at --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is almost trivial to address, since we already have the others elsewhere. And, funnily enough, there's not a peep raised there about the idea that discussion of sets of standard library functions, in other families of computer programming languages, is a "how-to". That's because the whole "It's a how-to." idea is pretty much a red herring. Uncle G (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent. You are allowed to vote keep, should you wish, Uncle G. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is almost trivial to address, since we already have the others elsewhere. And, funnily enough, there's not a peep raised there about the idea that discussion of sets of standard library functions, in other families of computer programming languages, is a "how-to". That's because the whole "It's a how-to." idea is pretty much a red herring. Uncle G (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)