Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirent.h

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to POSIX. Or elsewhere, consensus is that this shouldn't be a separate article, but where to cover it can be the subject of further discussion. The two "keep" opinions don't really address the guideline-based arguments against retention. Sandstein 08:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dirent.h

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article violates WP:NOTMANUAL and might have copyright problems. The page, except the introduction and the example, is almost literal quote of a man page. I think it should be redirected to POSIX or Folder (computing). 1exec1 (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as nominator. 1exec1 (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My vote's for 'redirect'. As stated, it fails WP:NOTMANUAL, and doesn't really deserve it's own article. CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Seriously, this is just manual material, not even borderline. I did a quick check of the articles it sidelinks to, by the way, worried that there might be quite a lot of headercruft. None seem as bad. Morwen - Talk 13:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge this an other to The C POSIX library. The library is really influential, being the basic of unix, linux, etc. the design of this library is important. We should have an article on the library separate to POSIX (its currently a redirect). However we don't need the article on each particular part. So merge this and the 30 odd similar headers into The C POSIX library. Some of the such as <stdio.h> are important enough to deserve their own articles.--Salix (talk): 22:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Tell the story, list a few keywords, but then link to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C_Programming/POSIX_Reference/dirent.h where it looks like someone has a full copy sitting there already? The entire side bar listed posix reference listing could be handled similarly? Oldspammer (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , like all C POSIX headers articles we have. Yes, I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the best reason, but I'd like to strive for consistency: either we reason on them all (e.g. merging all of them in a single article), or we keep them all separated, or anyway we arrive at a criteria. If it reads like a manual, this can be solved by editing, not deletion. Oh, and of course it is notable -books cover it, e.g. here. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:25, 4 November 2012 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.