Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C syntax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.179.26.250 (talk) at 21:44, 21 January 2005 ([[C syntax]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.