Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stdlib.h

Stdlib.h

(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]

Speedy redirect to C standard library. This has been discussed at length at the appropriate talk pages, WikiProjects and several previous related AfDs. There's absolutely no need to go through AfD for all those articles, because a single editor apparently disagrees, where exactly the same people will turn up to reach the same conclusion. —Ruud 22:28, 31 October 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 specific 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 until you address this request. 1exec1 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per my comment Christian75 (talk) 23:13, 31 October 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:

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.
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.
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]

Don’t delete; I don’t think anyone suggested completely deleting the contents and history from public view. There is potential for much of the content to overlap with things like C functions#stdlib.h, Standard C library#ISO C library headers, Null pointer, size_t, and the older div (C) and itoa pages, so perhaps merging, splitting, and redirecting should be discussed instead of deletion. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 06:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]